Brian McCarter v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20252046)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 29, 2025 SPR25/2046 Christine O’Donnell, Esq. Records Access Officer Boston Police Department 1 City Hall Square Boston, MA 02201 Dear Attorney O’Donnell: I have received the petition of Brian McCarter 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 July 13, 2025, Mr. McCarter sought the following for “Harrison Avenue between East Lenox Street and Northampton Street, Boston, MA”: [1] Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) logs for all 911 calls between 2:00 PM and midnight on June 24, 2025, for the above geographic area[;] [2] Call-for-service reports for the same period and location[;] [3] Body-worn camera footage or incident reports for any officer(s) dispatched in connection with any calls[;] [4] Internal correspondence or summaries prepared by BPD, [three identified individuals], or any city/BPD official regarding the response time to any call made to this block on this day[;] [5] Any records or statements indicating response time. The Department responded on July 13 and July 15, 2025, assigning the request reference number B001905-071325. Unsatisfied with the responses, Mr. McCarter petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2046, 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 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. SPR25/2046 Page 2 July 29, 2025 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. See 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 13th and July 15th Responses In its July 13, 2025 response, the Department stated, “[y]our request has been received and is being processed.” In its July 15, 2025 response, the Department stated: Your request does not comply with the public records law because it is overly broad and vague… In addition to the requirement that the request identify with specificity the records sought, the requester also must act in a reasonable manner so as not to overburden the public entity with complying with the request. See Friedman v. Division of Administrative Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Education Appeals, Suffolk Sup. No. 2284CV02061-C, at 3 (February 14, 2023). Although you identify the records that you are looking for, this description does not meet the statutory standard that records be identified with sufficient particularity. The description you provide is too broad and vague. The Department would need to locate these records and review to determine responsiveness. This would require 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; therefore, this request does not satisfy the statutory standard of reasonable description of records. See Chawla, Suffolk Sup. No. 1784CV02097, at 2. Current Appeal In his July 15, 2025 petition to this office, Mr. McCarter stated, “[m]y request does not require interpretation or speculation by non-legal staff, and clearly identifies the categories of records sought[.]”

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/2046 Page 3 July 29, 2025 Breadth of Request; Reasonable Description of Records Sought Please be advised, in Friedman v. Division of Administrative Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Education Appeals, the Suffolk Superior Court, in its Memorandum of Decision and Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, stated: [The requester] has a right to seek public records from his government, provided he does so in a reasonable manner. [The agencies], in turn, have a right not to be inundated with drain-the-ocean records requests, provided they fulfill the basic expectations of the [Public Records Law] in a fair and transparent manner. See Friedman v. Division of Administrative Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Education Appeals, Suffolk Sup. No. 2284CV02061-C, at 3 (February 14, 2023). The Court in Friedman noted, “the extraordinary volume of records called for in this case has compelled the Defendants to produce responsive materials in a ‘rolling’ fashion, rather than in accordance with deadlines contemplated by the [Public Records Law].” Id. at 1. The Court stated that: [T]he parties shall be expected to agree upon, to the greatest extent possible, the following: (a) appropriate definitions, time frames, and parameters regarding substance and scope for the identification of requested documents; (b) appropriate search terms to be used for the retrieval of responsive documents; (c) a reasonable time frame for the production of requested documents, if the statute’s presumptive deadlines are not realistic; (d) appropriate rules to govern the withholding of documents falling within the scope of a statutory privilege or privacy doctrine; and (e) an appropriate methodology for computing the reasonable fees that may be charged for responsive document production. Id. at 2. In addition, please be aware that the request must reasonably describe the specific records sought. 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). Based on a review of Mr. McCarter’s request, this office does not find that his request is unreasonably vague or overly broad in scope. Mr. McCarter has provided specific descriptions of the categories of records he is seeking, including a location, a date, a timeframe, and the specific types of documents he seeks. Consequently, Mr. McCarter has provided sufficient particularity required to identify the documents he is seeking.

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/2046 Page 4 July 29, 2025 Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. McCarter 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. McCarter 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: Brian McCarter