Timothy Ryan v. Amesbury, City of - Police Department (SPR 20251964)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 17, 2025 SPR25/1964 Janet L. Moyer Executive Assistant to the Chief Amesbury Police Department 19 School Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Dear Ms. Moyer: I have received the petition of Timothy Ryan appealing the response of the Amesbury 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 18, 2025, Mr. Ryan requested, “[f]rom 2018 to present[,] all reports w[ith] [an identified officer].” The Department responded on July 7, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Ryan petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1964, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the Department provided a supplemental response on July 11, 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. 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

Janet L. Moyer SPR25/1964 Page 2 July 17, 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. The Department’s July 7th Response In its July 7, 2025 response, the Department stated, “[t]here are no dates or any other identifiable information in your request. There are 74 incidents attached to your name alone. It would be impossible for me to search each and every incident looking to see if [an identified officer] was involved. I am denying your request based on lack of information to properly search and fulfil your request.” Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Ryan stated, “I am requesting all of my record[s] from the Amesbury Police. [The Department is] refusing… I ask for intervention to resolve the conflict.” In its supplemental response on July 11, 2025, the Department stated: There are 77 reports associated with Mr. Ryan’s name in our CAD system. When I received this report request I called Mr. Ryan and left a voicemail asking for clarification as to the exact nature of his request… Mr. Ryan’s request (this appeal) has been fulfilled several times. Mr. Ryan habitually requests reports to cause an undue burden on this department by requesting reports which have already been given to him multiple times. Our CAD system doesn’t record reports by Officers but rather by dates of service. When Mr. Ryan was asked to provide dates to make the search more reasonable he didn’t respond. For the above reasons I denied Mr. Ryan’s report request. Please be aware, the Public Records Law states that a records access officer must furnish a copy of any public record “provided that the request reasonably describes the public record sought.” See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). In a recent case, the Superior Court found that under the Public Records Law “[t]he reasonable description requirement contemplates that a requesting party will identify documents or categories of documents with sufficient particularity that government employees will be able to understand exactly what they are looking for, and then make a prompt production.” See Jaideep Chawla v. Dept of Revenue, Suffolk. Sup. No. 1784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019). The court further indicated “[r]equests for documents that are articulated with very broad language that calls upon non-lawyer administrative personnel to interpret the scope of what is sought, and then make fine judgments about what documents are and are not sufficiently ‘related’ to the category of materials requested, will not satisfy this statutory standard.” As such, requests that seek “all records relating to…,” “all records concerning…,” or “all records regarding…” are not sufficiently particular as to satisfy the statutory standard of a request that “reasonably described the public record sought.” See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i).

Janet L. Moyer SPR25/1964 Page 3 July 17, 2025 Consistent with the decision in Chawla, I find that the language “all reports w[ith] [an identified officer]” does not satisfy the statutory standard for a request that reasonably describes the public records sought. See Chawla, at 2. Mr. Ryan may wish to provide clarification regarding the specific records he is seeking. Once Mr. Ryan has provided the needed clarification, the Department must provide a response within 10 business days. This office encourages Mr. Ryan and the Department to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (an agency shall suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the agency to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Ryan is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Timothy Ryan