Wendi Venditti v. Bourne, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20252011)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 24, 2025 SPR25/2011 Stephanie Boyle Records Access Officer Bourne Police Department 35 Armory Road Buzzards Bay, MA 02532 Dear Ms. Boyle: I have received the petition of Katelyn M. Revens, of DeLuca, Weizenbaum, Barry & Revens, Ltd., appealing the response of the Bourne 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, Wendi Venditti, also of DeLuca, Weizenbaum, Barry & Revens, Ltd., requested the following: It is our understanding that your department was called to assist in a 911 emergency call that was made on Scenic Hwy, Bourne, Massachusetts on May 28, 2025 at approximately 1555. In that regard, we are requesting the following: True and accurate copies of the complete Police Department file relative to the call/emergency response made to Scenic Hwy, Bourne, Massachusetts on May 28, 2025. The requested information, documents and/or materials shall include, but not be limited to all dispatch reports, time logs, timed reports or time recordings of any kind, response reports, incident reports, narratives with exhibits, witness statements, statements given or obtained from any person, memoranda, correspondence, notes, 911 calls, call/dispatch logs, body cam footage, and any and all documents and/or materials of every nature and description which relate in any way in response to the emergency call made on the date provided. The Department responded on June 27, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. Revens petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/2011, 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 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

Stephanie Boyle SPR25/2011 Page 2 July 24, 2025 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. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Revens argues the following: We requested copies of the complete Police Department file related to the accident and investigation and received a response denying our request. Subsequent phone calls with . . . Bourne Police Department were unsuccessful, and we were advised to contact Falmouth District Court to obtain copies of the police report. . . . We appeal the Bourne Police Department’s decision and request copies of the entire Police Department file relating to this incident as indicated on our original request and which would include photographs in jpeg format/on CD. The Department’s June 27th Response In its June 27, 2025 response, the Department provides a responsive report in redacted form, and explains the following: A – Statutory . . . Records contained information that is exempted from public disclosure by statute, such as Driver’s Privacy Protection Act, and 950 CMR 32.08. The requested records are currently involved in active litigation. . . . F – Investigatory . . . The record(s) contained information of an investigative nature, the disclosure of which would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest. This includes any witness statements or witness information and any cases that are in the court process.

Stephanie Boyle SPR25/2011 Page 3 July 24, 2025 Pending Litigation 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. This office has reviewed the trial court’s docket and verified that the criminal litigation, relating to the records that are the subject of Ms. Venditti’s request, is active and ongoing in the Falmouth District Court. See Commonwealth v. Joao Resendes, (Falmouth District Court Docket No. 2589-CR-000668). In light of the pending matter, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Please note that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Katelyn M. Revens