George and Jen Burden v. Lunenburg, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20251443)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 30, 2025 SPR25/1443 Lieutenant Sean Zrate Records Access Officer Lunenburg Police Department 655 Massachusetts Avenue Lunenburg, MA 01462 Dear Lieutenant Zrate: I have received the petition of George and Jennifer 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 May 20, 2025, Mr. and Mrs. Burden requested: …all records [an identified officer] refers to - “Hi George, So is this case of embezzlement that you wish to file a report on have to do with [an identified individual]? Is it the same case that you filed a report with [an identified officer] on 11/22/2024? And with [an identified officer] on a previous date…” The Department responded on May 21, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. and Mrs. Burden petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1443, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the Department provided a supplemental response on May 22, 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 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

Lieutenant Sean Zrate SPR25/1443 Page 2 May 30, 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 May 21st and May 22nd Responses In its May 21, 2025 response, the Department provided two police logs and two police reports via email attachment and further identified a responsive video file. The Department stated, “[d]ue to the size of this video request (2.16 GB), I am unable to send the video file in an email. Your options to receive this are to (1) Pick up the DVD at the station, or (2) send a self- addressed envelope with postage to the Lunenburg police station, and I can mail the DVD to you.” Additionally, the Department recited the language of Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law in support of redacting the records. Current Appeal In their appeal petition, Mr. and Mrs. Burden stated: The basis for the appeal is the reason for redactions and how [they] apply to the documents provided is unclear….The other basis for the appeal is that the Lunenburg Police Department are making it very difficult to obtain records as we feel things are being hidden and they again are trying to provide the records on a medium that is outdated, DVD. We do not have access to a DVD. We are also unable to open files provided in the response….We would like the documents requested placed in a cloud drive / folder that we can access and download the records. Please open an appeal to obtain the records in a usable medium and with redactions identified. Exemption (a) Exemption (a), known as the statutory exemption, permits the withholding of records that are: specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute G. L. c. 4, §7 (26)(a). A governmental entity may use the statutory exemption as a basis for withholding requested materials where the language of the exempting statute relied upon expressly or

Lieutenant Sean Zrate SPR25/1443 Page 3 May 30, 2025 necessarily implies that the public’s right to inspect records under the Public Records Law is restricted. See Att’y Gen. v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 54 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-46 (1977). This exemption creates two categories of exempt records. The first category includes records that are specifically exempt from disclosure by statute. Such statutes expressly state that such a record either “shall not be a public record,” “shall be kept confidential” or “shall not be subject to the disclosure provision of the Public Records Law.” The second category under the exemption includes records deemed exempt under statute by necessary implication. Such statutes expressly limit the dissemination of particular records to a defined group of individuals or entities. A statute is not a basis for exemption if it merely lists individuals or entities to whom the records are to be provided; the statute must expressly limit access to the listed individuals or entities. In its May 22, 2025 supplemental response, the Department stated: Two police logs and two police reports, and a copy of the Burdens records request by email, all contained in one file, that was in a pdf format, was emailed to the Burdens on May21st. Because they previously had not chosen their preferred means of transferring files offered by the Lunenburg Police Department the file was placed on a DVD, which was offered for them to pick up at the station or be mailed to them. Past conversations with the Burdens stated that they did not want the data on a flash/thumb drive either… Because George Burden’s past concerns about his personal information being released by this department, his personal information such as his SS#, Driver’s License #, PCF # , and LTC information were redacted because, while email is generally safe, in the event it was compromised, his personal information would not be released… While some computers no longer offer DVD players, an external DVD reader / player is inexpensive and easily available…The Lunenburg Police Department has not offered the Burdens, or any private citizen for that matter, access to a “cloud” owned and operated by the Town of Lunenburg, for the use of transferring data… The Lunenburg Police Department does not click on random links provided by the Burdens, through email, directing this department to upload the files to his “Dropbox”. This was not offered as a means to transfer data… The Burdens numerous appeals to your office are frivolous in nature and are being used to cause this department to focus valuable time and resources responding to this lunacy.

Lieutenant Sean Zrate SPR25/1443 Page 4 May 30, 2025 In an email to this office in reply to the Department’s supplemental response on May 22, 2025, Mr. and Mrs. Burden noted “discrepancies and inconsistencies” in the Department’s responses. In further email to this office on May 23, 2025, Mr. and Mrs. Burden stated, “…we have been unable to open the attachments provided in [the Department]’s email response.” Unclear Appeal Based on the information provided in the appeal petition and the Department’s responses, I find that the basis of Mr. and Mrs. Burden’s appeal is unclear. Mr. and Ms. Burden are advised 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). In this case, the Department has identified the requested redactions of Mr. Burden’s personal information, provided the responsive police logs and police reports in pdf format and has indicated that the remaining responsive record is available via DVD to be sent to or picked up by Mr. and Ms. Burden. Consequently, Mr. and Mrs. Burden’s request to have the records “placed in a cloud drive / folder” is unclear. This office encourages Mr. and Ms. Burden to communicate directly with the Department in order to arrange receipt of the remaining responsive record. Mr. and Ms. Burden may then describe their specific objections to the Department’s response or redactions. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: George and Jennifer Burden