Andrew Ryan v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20250458)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 3, 2025 SPR25/0458 Christine O’Donnell, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel Boston Police Department One City Hall Square Boston, MA 02201 Dear Attorney O’Donnell: I have received the petition of Andrew Ryan, of the Boston Globe, appealing the response of the Boston Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 15, 2024, Mr. Ryan requested the following records relating to following [an identified] Boston Police Officer: [1] Any document such as a roster card showing the assignment history for [the identified officer] [2] Copies of all complaints – both internal and external – regarding [the identified officer] [3] Copies of all internal affairs files for [the identified officer’s] entire career. Please note for IAD2012-0152 I am not seeking any information about the alleged victim, including anything that might identify him or her. I am seeking any records describing the allegations against [the identified officer] [4] Records showing dates [the identified officer] was placed on unpaid leave and the corresponding dates he was removed from unpaid leave and returned to the active payroll. If [the identified officer] is currently on unpaid leave, please provide records that indicate that. [5] Records showing dates [the identified officer] was placed on paid leave and the corresponding dates they were removed from paid leave and returned to the active payroll. If any of the officers are currently on paid leave, please provide records that indicate that. [6] Copies of all search warrants for which [the identified officer] was the affiant. The Department responded on December 2, 2024. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Ryan petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0458, was opened as a result. 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

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/0458 Page 2 March 3, 2025 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, § 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. The Department’s December 2nd response In its December 2, 2024 response, the Department provided the reference number R004741-111524 for this request and provided certain documents. The Department cited Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law to withhold all records associated with IAD2012-0152. Further the Department cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law in support of redactions. The Department also cited Jaideep Chawla v. Dept. of Revenue, Suffolk Sup. No. 1784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019) to claim that the search warrants request did not comply with the public records law because it is overly broad and vague. Current appeal In his appeal, Mr. Ryan states, “I am only appealing item number six in my request, which sought: “[c]opies of all search warrants for which [an identified Officer] was the affiant.” Mr. Ryan further advised, The Boston Police Department denied the request for search warrants because it said the request was “too broad and vague because the Department does not have a central database where this information is located.” The department also said in its response that the request would “require administrative personnel to interpret the scope of what is sought, and then make fine judgments about what documents are and are not sufficiently related to the category of materials requested.” Both of these assertions by the department are false. First, the department does

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/0458 Page 3 March 3, 2025 have a central database where all search warrants are located. This central database is described as the “BIS server” in Boston police’s Rule 334 – “Search Warrant Application and Execution.” Mr. Ryan further advised, “...in a follow up phone conversation with me on Nov 14, the department made it clear it could have done more to identify the response records. For example, the department did not ask Officer ... if he had copies of his own search warrants.” In its response the Department asserted, “[i]n regards to the search warrants, your request does not comply with the public records law because it is overly broad and vague. The Public Records Law requires that the request provide a reasonable description of records sought. See G.L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). In Chawla, the superior court found that under the Public Records Law “the reasonable description requirement contemplates that a requesting party will identify documents or categories of documents with sufficient particularity that government employees will be able to understand exactly what they are looking for, and then make a prompt production.” See Jaideep Chawla v. Dept. of Revenue, Suffolk Sup. No. 1784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019).” The Department further asserted, Although you identify the records that you are looking for, this description does not meet the statutory standard that records be identified with sufficient particularity. The description you provide is too broad and vague because the Department does not have a central database where this information is located. The Department would need to review all warrants and incident reports to locate the responsive records. This requires administrative personnel to interpret the scope of what is sought, and then make fine judgments about what documents are and are not sufficiently related to the category of materials requested; therefore, this request does not satisfy the statutory standard of reasonable description of records. See Chawla, Suffolk Sup. No. 1784CV02087, at 2. Based on Mr. Ryan’s claims, in conjunction with the Department’s response, it is unclear if the Department possesses any records responsive to Item 6 of the request. The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). However, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). Consequently, the Department must clarify if responsive records exist. I encourage Mr. Ryan and the Department to communicate further in order to facilitate producing records efficiently and affordably. Mr. Ryan may wish to include applicable time periods, additional factors to enable the search to be processed. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a)(i). The Department must use its knowledge of the records to facilitate providing any responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a)(vii) (an agency or municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification of the

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/0458 Page 4 March 3, 2025 scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the agency or municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Ryan with a response, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Mr. Ryan may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within 90 calendar days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Andrew Ryan