Brian Ratcliffe v. Taunton, City of - City Clerk (SPR 20252153)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 4, 2025 SPR25/2153 Matthew J. Costa, Esq. City Solicitor City of Taunton 15 Summer Street Taunton, MA 02780 Dear Attorney Costa: I have received the petition of Brian Ratcliffe appealing the response of the City of Taunton (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On June 1, 2025, Mr. Ratcliffe requested, “... body camera of the arrest of [an identified individual] on July 19, 2024 also a copy of the 911 call received by the Taunton police department also the names of the arresting police officers and all copies of the offices report on this arrest[.]” The City responded on June 12, 2025. On July 9, 2025, Mr. Ratcliffe modified his request as follows: “...all body cam footage, dash cam footage of the arrest of [an identified individual] on July 19, 2024 also a copy of the 911 call received by the Taunton Police Department on July 19, 2024. I would like the names of the arresting officers and all copies of police officers reports to this arrest.” Unsatisfied with the June 12th response, Mr. Ratcliffe petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2153, 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. 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

Matthew J. Costa, Esq. SPR25/2153 Page 2 August 4, 2025 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 his July 17th appeal, Mr. Ratcliffe asserts, “[t]he city’s response was that the ‘Supervisor of Records for the Commonwealth previously determined that records that are responsive to your request are not public record pursuant to exemption (a) of the Public Record Law’. I am appealing that response.” The City’s June 12th Response In its June 12, 2025 response, the City stated, “[p]lease be advised that the Supervisor of Records for the Commonwealth previously determined that the records that are responsive to your request are not public record pursuant to exemption (a) of the Public Record Law. Therefore, the Police Department will not be releasing records in response to this request.” The City’s June 12th response did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. 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. In the response, the City cited Exemption (a) of the Public Records but did not cite a statute to support the application of Exemption (a). As a result, I find that the City did not meet its burden of specificity in claiming Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested records from disclosure. Further, based on the City’s response, it is unclear what types of records it possesses that it is withholding from disclosure. To deny access to a record under the Public Records Law, a records access officer must identify the record, categories of records, or portions of the record it intends to withhold. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3)(c)(4). Here, the City withheld responsive records without identifying each of the records. Therefore, the City must identify the record(s) it has in its possession that the City withheld under Exemption (a). Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Ratcliffe with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations

Matthew J. Costa, Esq. SPR25/2153 Page 3 August 4, 2025 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. Mr. Ratcliffe may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Brian Ratcliffe