George and Jen Burden v. Lunenburg, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20250777)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 2, 2025 SPR25/0777 Sean Zrate Acting Lieutenant Lunenburg Police Department 655 Massachusetts Avenue Lunenburg, MA 01462 Dear Lieutenant Zrate: I have received the petition of Jen and George Burden appealing the response of the Lunenburg 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 January 21, 2025, Mr. and Mrs. Burden requested “… all records related to the theft of a package at [a specified address] that occurred between 01/01/24 and 01/01/25.” In an email to the Department and this office on February 18, 2025, Mr. and Mrs. Burden narrowed the request and stated, “[w]e are only asking for the police report at this time and not investigatory information / documents.” Previous Appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR25/0470 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 18, 2025) and SPR25/0480 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 26, 2025). In my February 26th determination, I found that while certain redactions may fall under Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law as it pertains to the identifying information of a voluntary witness, the Department must clarify its claims under Exemption (f) for withholding the responsive record in its entirety. Subsequently, the Department responded on March 19, 2025 and March 20, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s responses, Mr. and Mrs. Burden petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/0777, 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 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

Sean Zrate SPR25/0777 Page 2 April 2, 2025 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. Att’y 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 their March 20, 2025 petition to this office, Mr. and Mrs. Burden appear to contend that the Department did not provide all responsive records to their request. They state, “[t]he report (24LUN-712-OF) provided by Mr. Zrate indicates a video on a USB stick.” The Burdens additionally object to the redactions contained in the report provided to them by the Department in its March 19, 2025 response, and claim the following: Given some names are redacted and others are not (no understanding why and we expected only PII to be redacted), we would like the remainder of the names also unredacted. The report itself has also been modified other than just the redactions. The report contains the following : “** Portions of this report have been redacted **”. If all redactions are properly redacted this sentence is not needed and we worry without the transparency that all some other [sic] indormstinb [sic] is being withdrawn. The Department’s Responses In its previous February 18, 2025 response, the Department informed Mr. and Mrs. Burden that it possessed a report responsive to the request, and that it was withholding the report pursuant to Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. In its March 19, 2025 response, the Department provided a redacted copy of the report referenced in its February 18, 2025 response, as described above, and advised the following: Per the Secretary of State’s Public Records Division’s decision regarding appeal SPR25-0480, the Lunenburg Police Department is providing Jennifer and George Burden with report # 24LUN-712-OF as requested.

Sean Zrate SPR25/0777 Page 3 April 2, 2025 . . . I have redacted personal information regarding both victims to include Social Security numbers, driver’s license numbers, and dates of birth, employer details, and ethnicity. The only other redactions are the witness’s names. In its March 20, 2025 response, the Department contended that in providing a redacted copy of the report, it provided all records responsive to the Burdens’ narrowed February 18, 2025 request. The Department further stated the following: The redactions to report # 24LUN-712-OF sent to Mrs. and Mr. Burden are consistent with their [February 18, 2025] email sent to this officer, and the Secretary of State’s Office. . . . Redactions were in fact made and private video evidence was not included, all consistent with the Burdens request. Regarding USB evidence from report # 24LUN-712-OF, the Lunenburg Police Department askes [sic] that this evidence is not released, citing Exemption (f). . . . The evidence listed in report # 24LUN-712-OF, specifically property number # 24LUN-218-PR, a USB drive containing security & surveillance video from a FedEx delivery vehicle is not something that FedEx shares openly with the public. Releasing this video to the general public compromises the safety of their employees by showing exactly what is, and what isn’t recorded. Furthermore, releasing private surveillance video to the public can have a detrimental effect on the police’s ability to solve crime if victims and witnesses start withholding evidence out of fear and intimidation that the public would be allowed access to their private security[.] Upon review, where the Burdens narrowed their request on February 18, 2025, the Department provided a report responsive to the narrowed request on March 19, 2025, and redacted identifying information of voluntary witnesses from the report under Exemption (f) as permitted in my previous determination, I find that the basis of the Burdens’ appeal is unclear. The Burdens are reminded that all petitions for appeal “shall specifically describe the nature of the requestor’s objections to the response or failure to timely respond.” 950 C.M.R. 32.08(l)(f). Additionally, where the Mr. and Mrs. Burden’s narrowed February 18, 2025 request sought only a specific police report, I decline to opine on the portion of the their appeal concerning “a video on a USB stick” as well as the Department’s Exemption (f) claim, supporting non-disclosure of the USB. If the Burdens make a separate request for the USB and are unsatisfied with the response, they may file an appeal with this office within ninety (90) days. Mr. and Mrs. Burden also claim in their appeal that the responsive report provided to them “has . . . been modified other than just the redactions.” Please note these matters are outside the jurisdiction of this office. Given that such issues do not fall within the authority of this office,

Sean Zrate SPR25/0777 Page 4 April 2, 2025 I am unable to address such issues in this determination. The Burdens are advised that they may wish to seek advice from private legal counsel to address these matters. Conclusion In compliance with the Public Records Law, the Supervisor of Records may only issue determinations where a violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 has occurred. G. L. c. 66, § 10A (a). Given that no violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 has been asserted by Mr. and Mr. Burden in their appeal petition, I am unable to issue a determination at this time. I will consider this administrative appeal closed. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jen and George Burden