Christian A. Williams v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20251923)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 16, 2025 SPR25/1923 Christine O’Donnell, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel Office of the Legal Advisor Boston Police Department 1 City Hall Square Boston, MA 02201 Dear Attorney O’Donnell: I have received the petition of Christian A. Williams, Esq. appealing the response of the Boston 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 24, 2025, Attorney Williams requested the following: [1] All training materials, manuals, guides, presentations, videos, e-learning modules, and documentation related to the Mark 43 Records Management System (RMS) and Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) software currently in use by the Boston Police Department. [2] All technical specifications, user guides, quick reference sheets, and troubleshooting guides provided to Boston Police Department personnel regarding the use of the Mark 43 software. [3] Records of any contracts, memoranda of understanding, or agreements between the Boston Police Department and Mark 43, Inc. related to training services or materials. [4] Any departmental policies, procedures, or directives governing the use of the Mark 43 system within the Boston Police Department. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/1300 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (May 20, 2025). In the May 20th determination, I closed the appeal as a result of the Department’s May 9, 2025 responses. Unsatisfied with the responses, Attorney Williams petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1923, was opened as a result. 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

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/1923 Page 2 July 16, 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 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 City’s May 9th Responses In its initial May 9, 2025 response, the Department stated “[d]ue to the nature of your request additional time is needed. As such, the City will need up to, but no more than, fifteen (15) additional business days to review and process your request.” In its second May 9, 2025 response, the Department indicated that it was actively working to resolve the request at issue. Current Appeal In his July 2, 2025 petition to this office, Attorney Williams stated that he had not yet received responsive records from the Department. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) provides, in pertinent part, that if the magnitude or difficulty of the request unduly burdens the other responsibilities of the agency or municipality such that the agency or municipality cannot provide records within 10 business days, the agency or municipality must inform the requestor in writing within 10 business days. With respect to the timeframe to produce responsive records, the written response shall: identify a reasonable timeframe in which the agency or municipality shall produce the public records sought; provided, that for an agency, the timeframe shall not exceed 15 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records and for a municipality the timeframe shall not exceed 25 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records; and provided further,

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/1923 Page 3 July 16, 2025 that the requestor may voluntarily agree to a response date beyond the timeframes set forth herein. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Where Attorney Williams’ request was submitted on April 24, 2025, and the Department has not provided responsive records, I find the Department has not met its burden in responding to the request in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Accordingly, I find the Department must provide an estimated date as to when it expects to complete its review and provide the requested records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). To the extent possible, the Department must provide responsive records on a rolling basis. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Attorney Williams with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten 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 Williams may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Christian A. Williams, Esq.