Julia Ducey v. Southbridge, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20251271)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 19, 2025 SPR25/1271 Gerald Arvelo Records Access Officer Southbridge Police Department 1 Mechanic Street Southbridge, MA 01550 Dear Officer Arvelo: I have received the petition of Julia Ducey appealing the response of the Southbridge 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 9, 2025, Ms. Ducey requested “all body cam footage from all officers present during the search warrant execution on 3/29/25. Search warrant docket number 2564sw26.” Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/1132 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (April 28, 2025). In my April 28th determination, I ordered the Department to provide Ms. Ducey with a supplemental response. Subsequently, the Department responded on May 6, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. Ducey petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1271, 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 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

Gerald Arvelo SPR25/1271 Page 2 May 19, 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. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Ducey states, “[t]his body cam footage I’ve requested was filmed in a public space with members of the public present, including myself. I would like to continue to appeal this denial for a second time, due to the fact that this law doesn’t apply to this scenario… I am unsure how I am continuously denied of footage that I am in.” Status of the Requestor; Reason for the Request 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 G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. ------------------------------ 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Ms. Ducey’s interest in obtaining the record shall have no bearing on the public nature of the record. The Department’s May 6th Response In its May 6, 2025 response, the Department stated: The requested records are involving the prosecution of [an identified individual] (Docket Number 2564CR000846) which is currently open with a next scheduled hearing date of May 15, 2025 through Dudley District Court. This incident is currently being processed for prosecution through Dudley District Court. As such, records of cases or investigations being investigated, prosecuted or previously adjudicated may be exempt from release as public records under M.G.L. c. 4, §26(f). Exemptions A and F. All requests for any documents and/or evidence related to this incident should be directed to the Office of the District Attorney. Pending Litigation 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor:

Gerald Arvelo SPR25/1271 Page 3 May 19, 2025 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. This office has reviewed the Dudley District Court’s docket and verified that criminal litigation relating to the records that are the subject of Ms. Ducey’s request is active and ongoing in Dudley District Court. See Commonwealth vs. Kasperson, Demetri A, Dudley District Court Docket No. 2564CR000846 (March 31, 2025). In light of the pending litigation, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Additionally, I decline to opine on the applicability of Exemptions (a) and (f) of the Public Records Law to the requested records. Please note that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Julia Ducey