Emma Rindlisbacher v. Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission (SPR 20250126)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 29, 2025 SPR25/0126 Kerri Johnson Records Access Officer Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission 84 State Street, Suite 200 Boston, MA 02109 Dear Ms. Johnson: I have received the petition of Emma Rindlisbacher appealing the response of the Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission (Commission) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 20, 2024, Ms. Rindlisbacher requested the following: …copies of all of the documents regarding the [specified individual’s] incident of alleged use of force (the “credible information” that made the allegation and the “papers related to the suspension of the certification”). Please limit this request to documents between Jan 1, 2023 and the date the search is conducted. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR24/3145 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 4, 2024). In my December 4th determination, I ordered the Commission to clarify its claims under Exemptions (a), (d), and (f) for withholding responsive records. Subsequently, the Commission responded on January 14, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Commission’s response, Ms. Rindlisbacher petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/0126, was opened as a result. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). “Public records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency or municipality of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-2832 • Fax: (617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre • pre@sec.state.ma.us

Kerri Johnson SPR25/0126 Page 2 January 29, 2025 § 7(26). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. If there are any fees associated with a response, a written good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Rindlisbacher contends that she does “not believe that the exemptions cited are applicable” and that “the records should be released in their entirety.” The Commission’s January 14th Response In its January 14, 2025 response, the Commission states the following: First, the Commission clarifies that the responsive records in the Commission’s possession include: • Various Taunton Police Department emails to the Commission and to Joyce; • Taunton Police Department Incident Report; • Taunton Police Department Arrest Report; • Taunton Police Department Supplemental Reports by various law enforcement officers (approximately nine reports); • A use of force report; • Video footage of the Taunton Police Department booking area; • Body worn camera footage; • Commission preliminary inquiry notice letter; • Draft reports by law enforcement officers and comments to those draft reports; • Joyce’s disciplinary history record and various related records; • Commission internal memoranda and records developed for the purpose of conducting a preliminary inquiry. Additionally, the Commission states that responsive records “were used at the Commission’s executive session” and that the Commission is withholding the responsive records pursuant to Exemptions (a) and (f) of the Public Records Law, and pursuant to the attorney-client privilege. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a), (f).

Kerri Johnson SPR25/0126 Page 3 January 29, 2025 Open Meeting Law In its January 14th response, the Commission argues the following: All materials that were used at the Commission’s executive session are among the materials listed above. At this time, such materials in their entirety do not constitute public records, pursuant to M.G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26(a) (“Exemption (a)”), which allows the Commission to withhold records that are “specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute” in light of M.G.L. c. 30A, § 22(f), requiring that “[t]he minutes of any executive session, the notes, recordings or other materials used in the preparation of such minutes and all documents and exhibits used at the session, may be withheld from disclosure to the public in their entirety under [Exemption (a)], as long as publication may defeat the lawful purposes of the executive session, but no longer; provided, however, that the executive session was held in compliance with [M.G.L. c. 30A, § 21].” The Commission has not made a determination that release of these records may no longer defeat the lawful purpose of the executive session. Thus, these materials are not public records at the moment. Please note that G. L. c. 30A, § 18 defines the Open Meeting Law as G. L. c. 30A, §§ 18– 25, inclusive. Where the Commission indicates that the responsive records were used in executive session, the Commission’s response raises issues potentially related to the Open Meeting Law. See G. L. c. 30A, § 22(f). Given that an interpretation of the Open Meeting Law falls within the authority of the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) and not this office, I decline to address those issues in this determination. See G. L. c. 30A, § 23. Consequently, I encourage Ms. Rindlisbacher and the Commission to contact the AGO for a determination on the status of the records used in executive session. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Emma Rindlisbacher