← Back to Search
John Stoddard v. Northampton Police Department (SPR 20252166)
Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Public records appeal decision · Filed 07-23-2025
ClosedAppealDecision
SPR 20252166 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by John Stoddard concerning records held by Northampton Police Department, opened 07-23-2025. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Public records appeal decision.
Case Details
- Case Number
- 20252166
- Case Type
- Appeal
- Case Subtype
- Initial
- Status
- Closed
- Requester
- John Stoddard
- Custodian
- Northampton Police Department
- Date Opened
- 07-23-2025
- Date Closed
- 08-06-2025
PDF Document
Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 6, 2025 SPR25/2166 Bridget Allen Records Bureau Clerk Northampton Police Department 29 Center Street Northampton, MA 01060-3090 Dear Ms. Allen: I have received the petition of John Stoddard appealing the response of the Northampton 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 15, 2025, Mr. Stoddard requested a police report pertaining to a May 5, 2025 speeding ticket and stated “… the docket number is 2545MV000142.” The Department responded on July 21, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Stoddard petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2166, 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. 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 Bridget Allen SPR25/2166 Page 2 August 6, 2025 The Department’s July 15th Response In its July 15, 2025 response, the Department provided Mr. Stoddard with a dispatch log entry. The Department stated that it was withholding a responsive citation in its entirety based on active litigation “… listed as Docket number 2545MV000142 at the Northampton District Court.” Current Appeal In his July 23, 2025 petition to this office, Mr. Stoddard contended that the Department’s response lacked specificity, and sought the release of any evidence related to docket number 2545MV000142. In telephone conversations with this office on July 28 and July 31, 2025, the Department confirmed that the requested records were the subject of active and ongoing litigation in Northampton District Court, and that the matter was scheduled for a Magistrate’s Hearing on August 1, 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. In light of the pending litigation, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). It should be noted 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: John Stoddard