Jonathan Gerhardson v. Mansfield, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20251789)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 3, 2025 SPR25/1789 Matthew Todesco Records Access Officer Mansfield Police Department 500A East Street Mansfield, MA 02048 Dear Mr. Todesco: I have received the petition of Jonathan Gerhardson appealing the response of the Mansfield 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 June 8, 2025, Mr. Gerhardson requested “unredacted versions” of 34 identified “Mansfield PD policy documents.” The Department responded on June 23, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Gerhardson petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1789, 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. 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. 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

Matthew Todesco SPR25/1789 Page 2 July 3, 2025 The Department’s June 23rd Response In its June 23, 2025 response, the Department provided responsive records and cited Exemption (n) of the Public Records Law to redact 33 of the 34 requested documents. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Gerhardson states, “[t]he Department failed to provide a specific, factual basis for any redaction….The Department’s redactions are overbroad and conceal basic public information.” Exemption (n) Exemption (n) applies to: records, including, but not limited to, blueprints, plans, policies, procedures and schematic drawings, which relate to internal layout and structural elements, security measures, emergency preparedness, threat or vulnerability assessments, or any other records relating to the security or safety of persons or buildings, structures, facilities, utilities, transportation, cyber security or other infrastructure located within the commonwealth, the disclosure of which, in the reasonable judgment of the record custodian, subject to review by the supervisor of public records under subsection (c) of section 10 of chapter 66, is likely to jeopardize public safety or cyber security. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(n). Exemption (n) allows for the withholding of certain records which if released would jeopardize public safety. The first prong of Exemption (n) examines “whether, and to what degree, the record sought resembles the records listed as examples in the statute;” specifically, the “inquiry is whether, and to what degree, the record is one a terrorist ‘would find useful to maximize damage.’” People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280, 289-90 (2017). The second prong of Exemption (n) examines “the factual and contextual support for the proposition that disclosure of the record is ‘likely to jeopardize public safety.’” Id. at 289-90. The PETA decision further provides that “[b]ecause the records custodian must exercise ‘reasonable judgment’ in making that determination, the primary focus on review is whether the custodian has provided sufficient factual heft for the supervisor of public records or the reviewing court to conclude that a reasonable person would agree with the custodian’s determination given the context of the particular case.” Id. PETA also provides that “[t]hese two prongs of exemption (n) must be analyzed together, because there is an inverse correlation between them. That is, the more the record sought

Matthew Todesco SPR25/1789 Page 3 July 3, 2025 resembles the records enumerated in exemption (n), the lower the custodian’s burden in demonstrating ‘reasonable judgment’ and vice versa.” PETA, at 290. In its June 23rd response, the Department recited the language of Exemption (n) and described the contents of each requested record, which primarily concern police tactics and procedures. The Department argued that release of the unredacted versions of the policy documents “would allow for countermeasures [and] jeopardize public safety.” Based on the Department’s response, although the requested records resemble the records listed as examples in the statute, the Department has not demonstrated that the records are the type that “a terrorist would find useful to maximize damage” as required under Exemption (n). Further, the Department did not provide sufficient factual heft to conclude that a reasonable person would agree that disclosure of the records is “likely to jeopardize public safety or cybersecurity,” as required by Exemption (n). The Department must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Gerhardson 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. Mr. Gerhardson 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: Jonathan Gerhardson