Shawn Wiley v. Danvers, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20250682)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 26, 2025 SPR25/0682 James Lovell Chief of Police Danvers Police Department 120 Ash Street Danvers, MA 01923 Dear Chief Lovell: I have received the petition of Shawn Wiley appealing the response of the Danvers 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 February 18, 2025, Mr. Wiley requested “…documentation that substantiates specific claims made in the police report for Incident #23011525.” Specifically, Mr. Wiley is sought “copies of all records, notes, communications, and materials” related to the following statements: [1] Medical & Toxicology Records Related to Drug Use Allegations The police report states: “[An identified individual] told [an identified individual] he had a seizure and was in and out of multiple hospitals … [an identified individual] said [an identified individual] told him the doctors ‘found meth in his system.” This statement is significant because it directly impacted the framing of the report. Therefore, I request: • All medical records, toxicology reports, or hospital discharge summaries obtained by Danvers Police that confirm or refute this claim. • All correspondence between Danvers Police and any medical facilities regarding this matter. • If no such records exist, I request written confirmation that this statement was included in the police report without supporting evidence. [2] Statements from ‘Mutual Friends’ & Witness Interviews on Alleged Meth Use 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

Chief James Lovell SPR25/0682 Page 2 March 26, 2025 The report states: “[An identified individual] went on to say he’s heard through mutual friends [an identified individual] has been known to use meth.” If this claim had investigative merit, then witness statements must exist. Therefore, I request: • All recorded witness statements, interview notes, or investigative findings regarding these ‘mutual friends.’ • Any documented attempts by law enforcement to verify or disprove this claim. • If no such records exist, I request written confirmation that this statement was included in the report without corroboration. [3] Investigation Notes on Prescription Medication Allegations The report states: “[An identified individual] has seen [an identified individual] abuse his ADHD medication … [an identified individual] stated [an identified individual] kept two different types of pills in the same prescription bottle and would take one of each every morning.” Since medication records are protected under HIPAA, and law enforcement would have no legal access to my private prescriptions without a warrant, I request: • All investigative records supporting this claim, including pharmacy records, medical assessments, or toxicology reports that were legally obtained. • If no records exist, I request confirmation that this statement was included without factual verification. [4] Police Follow-Up on “Cracked Coffee” Allegation The police report states: “Co-workers who’ve shared it eventually started calling it [an identified individual]’s ‘crack coffee’ because of the euphoric effect it had on their senses.” This is an unverified statement that was included as though it were investigative fact. Therefore, I request: • All records of police interviews with my co-workers regarding this claim. • Any documented efforts by police to confirm whether this statement originated from multiple sources or was simply stated by the accused. • If no co-worker statements exist, I request confirmation that this claim was included without independent verification.

Chief James Lovell SPR25/0682 Page 3 March 26, 2025 [5] Investigation Notes on “Disappearing for Three Weeks” Claim The report states: “There was a period of approximately three weeks in April that [an identified individual] inexplicably didn’t come home or return any texts/phone calls.” Since this claim suggests my absence was concerning enough to be included in a police report, I request: • All missing person reports filed for me during this period. • Any investigative reports, phone records, or interviews that substantiate this timeline. • If no such records exist, I request written confirm [sic] that this statement was included based solely on the accused’s claims. [6] Internal Justifications for Closing the Case Without Action The report concludes: “At this time, the results from this investigation do not provide sufficient facts to establish probable cause and no charges will be filed.” To understand the reasoning behind this determination, I request: • All internal communications discussing the decision to close the case. • Any memos, emails, or meeting notes regarding why my statements and submitted evidence were deemed insufficient. • If no such records exist, I request confirmation that the case was closed without documented discussion. The Department responded on February 27, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Wiley petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0682, 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, § 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

Chief James Lovell SPR25/0682 Page 4 March 26, 2025 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 February 27th Response In a response to Mr. Wiley on February 27, 2025, the Department stated, “[r]egarding requests 1 through 5, the Danvers Police Department has no records responsive to your request. In regards to request number 6, all available documents were provided to you on February 12, 2025.” In a subsequent email to this office on March 25, 2025, an attorney for the Department confirmed that the Department has no records responsive for Mr. Wiley’s requests 1 through 5 and has provided all available documents regarding request number 6. No Duty to Create Records Please be advised, under the Public Records Law a custodian is not required to create a record in response to a public records request. See G. L. c. 66, § 6A(d). In addition, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). Further, 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). Where the Department has confirmed that it does not possess records responsive to requests 1 through 5, has provided all records regarding request number 6, and has no duty to create records in response to a public records request, I find that Department has met its burden in responding to this request under the Public Records Law. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Wiley is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies).

Chief James Lovell SPR25/0682 Page 5 March 26, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Shawn Wiley