Bill Podszus v. Sutton, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20251250)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 19, 2025 SPR25/1250 Chief Thomas Calouro Sutton Police Department 489 Central Turnpike Sutton, MA 01590 Dear Chief Calouro: I have received the petition of Bill Podszus appealing the response of the Sutton 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 April 8, 2025, Mr. Podszus requested “[t]he police report filed with the Sutton Police Department by [an identified individual] on or about January 10, 2023.” Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/1250 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (May 5, 2025). In my May 5th determination, I closed SPR25/1250 in light of the Department providing Mr. Podszus with a response on April 10, 2025 and May 5, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Podszus petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/1250, was opened as a result. Status of the Requestor Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Mr. Podszus’s status as a person named in the report he seeks will play no role in a determination as to whether the records should be disclosed or redacted under the Public Records Law. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all 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 Thomas Calouro SPR25/1250 Page 2 May 19, 2025 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 April 10th Response In its April 10, 2025 response, the Department states that the “records request for a copy of report #23-14-of is denied. The record is part of an ongoing current investigation and will not be released until conclusion.” Burden of Specificity In this case, the Department’s April 10th response did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be on the custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption to withhold or redact records. Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear which exemption the Department is citing in order to withhold the requested record. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based”). See also Globe Newspaper Co. ------------------- v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511; Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). The Department must clarify these matters. Further, it is unclear from the Department’s response how the record can be withheld in its entirety. The Department must explain whether the record can be redacted so that segregable portions can be provided. See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90. Any nonexempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Podszus with a response to the

Chief Thomas Calouro SPR25/1250 Page 3 May 19, 2025 request, 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. Podszus may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Bill Podszus