Brian McCarter v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20252064)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 30, 2025 SPR25/2064 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 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 June 17, 2025, Mr. McCarter requested the following: All emails, attachments, or records of crime statistics sent to or from [identified individuals] from January 1, 2023 to the present[.] This request includes, but is not limited to: [1] Statistical summaries or compilations of crime data; [2] Weekly or monthly incident reports; [3] COMPSTAT reports or briefings; [4] Internal crime dashboards, charts, or spreadsheets; [5] Any crime data prepared for or discussed in command staff meetings; [6] Any related emails or documents forwarded, received, or sent by these individuals that include or attach crime statistics. The Department initially responded on June 18, 2025, assigning the request reference number B001676-061725. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/2015 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 16, 2025). In my July 16th determination, I closed SPR25/2015 in light of the Department providing a response on July 16, 2025. Unsatisfied with the 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. SPR25/2064 Page 2 July 30, 2025 Department’s response, Mr. McCarter petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2064, 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. The Department’s July 16th Response In its July 16, 2025 response, the Department stated: Your request does not comply with the public records law because it is overly broad and vague. The Public Records Law requires that the request provide a reasonable description of records sought… See Jaideep Chawla v. Dept. of Revenue… 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… 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... You are requesting all emails and attachments, or records of crime statistics sent to or from certain individuals at the Department from January 1, 2023 to the present… This search generated 6,015 documents with a total of 54,101 pages. The Department would need to review all of these records to determine responsiveness. The Department is also required to redact information that is not subject to disclosure... 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

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/2064 Page 3 July 30, 2025 materials requested… This is too burdensome for the Department to meet the “reasonably describes” requirement. Because of the Department’s duties and its role in public safety, a majority of its records contain the search terms that you identify or relate to the topics or categories in your request. Therefore, it is unclear what specific records you are requesting… We encourage you to consider narrowing your request. You may wish to modify or clarify your request to provide sufficient particularity, including narrowing the time period or identifying specific incidents or records to enable the search to be processed… In the event the City were able to determine the intended scope of your request, it is likely the City would have to provide a fee estimate given the likely volume of the potentially responsive records and the need for redaction or segregation of those records. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. McCarter stated, “[t]his request sought emails containing crime statistics from five named BPD command staff, covering the period from January 1, 2023 to present. The request was narrowly tailored in scope and topic…I respectfully request a ruling ordering the immediate production of responsive records.” Please be advised that 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. In addition, please be aware that the request must reasonably describe the specific records 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. l 784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019).

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/2064 Page 4 July 30, 2025 This office encourages the requestor and the Department to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a municipality 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 municipality to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Conclusion If outstanding issues remain after Mr. McCarter and the Department communicate further as described above, Mr. McCarter may file an appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Brian McCarter