Kevin D. Quinlan v. Oxford, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20251708)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 25, 2025 SPR25/1708 Debra Light Police Department Executive Assistant Oxford Police Department 503 Main Street Oxford, MA 01540 Dear Ms. Light: I have received the petition of Kevin D. Quinlan, Esq., on behalf of Michael LaMountain, appealing the response of the Oxford 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 23, 2025, Attorney Quinlan requested, “...Oxford Police Department public records relating to any incidents/calls for service involving either [an identified individual] or [an identified individual], at a residence located at …Federal Hill Road, Oxford, between 2014 and 2024.” The Department responded on May 27, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Attorney Quinlan petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1708, 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 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. 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

Debra Light SPR25/1708 Page 2 June 25, 2025 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. 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, Attorney Quinlan’s interest in obtaining the records shall have no bearing on the public nature of the records. The Department’s May 27th Response In its May 27, 2025 response, the Department stated, “…we are unable to provide you with this information…” and cited the following reasons: [1] Rape, Sexual Assault, Domestic Abuse Report[;] [2] Report can be obtained at court… The Department also stated, “[t]he records requested are the subject of a dispute in active litigation and therefore fall within a recognized basis for appeal denial under 950 CMR 32.08…” Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Attorney Quinlan states: I represent Mr. Michael LaMountain in a Worcester Superior Court felony criminal case. In that case, and in a related federal criminal case, Mr. LaMountain intends to assert a defense of “not guilty by reason of insanity.” My client tells me that there were many police responses to his home… between the dates indicated… which police responses did not result in criminal charges being filed… I need copies of the police reports from that time to provide to my expert. …[A]s I understand it, the calls for service did not result in criminal charges being filed, therefore the records are not available at the courthouse, or though the prosecutor’s office, contrary to one of the two reasons given for the denial of my request. The second reason given for said denial is that the requested records involve “[r]ape, [s]exual assault, [or] [d]omestic abuse…” However, I am not requesting records relating to my client’s Superior Court felony criminal case (or the related federal case), which does in fact involve such matters, but rather simply

Debra Light SPR25/1708 Page 3 June 25, 2025 requesting copies of police reports detailing calls for service to the home during the relevant period. To the extent that certain material is exempt from production, of course the government can make the necessary redactions… Burden of Specificity Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be on the custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption to withhold or redact public records. In this case, the Department withheld the records without claiming any exemption(s) in the Public Records Law that would support the withholding of the responsive records. Additionally, the Department did not identify the records it possesses that are responsive to the request. To deny access to a record under the Public Records Law, a records access officer must identify the record, categories of records, or portions of the record it intends to withhold and explain with specificity how any exemptions apply to withhold the records. 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. It is further uncertain how the records may be withheld in their entirety. See 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). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). The Department must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Attorney Quinlan with a response to the 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. Attorney Quinlan 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: Kevin D. Quinlan, Esq.