Jonathan Gerhardson v. Chicopee, City of - Police Department (SPR 20252406)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 28, 2025 SPR25/2406 Officer Anouson Souvannesane Bureau of Services Records Access Officer Chicopee Police Department 110 Church Street Chicopee, MA 01020 Dear Officer Souvannesane: I have received the petition of Jonathan Gerhardson appealing the response of the Chicopee 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 August 11, 2025, Mr. Gerhardson requested the following: [A] list of all individuals arrested by Chicopee Police Officers in the past 25 years or as far back as records allow, who are designated by either the Secretary of State of Federal Bureau of Investigation [sic] as a member of a Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) or Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs); or an FBI designated domestic terrorist organization. While the time frame is large, I hope by specifying only these subsets of criminals will streamline your production of records. Please list the names of each of these terrorists, the name, badge number, and assignment of the arresting officers, and the disposition of the arrest including court docket numbers as may be applicable. The Department responded on August 14, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Gerhardson petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/2406, 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

Officer Anouson Souvannesane SPR25/2406 Page 2 August 28, 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. The Department’s August 14th Response In its August 14, 2025 response, the Department explains the following: [T]he department is unable to process your request. Unfortunately, the Chicopee Police Department does not maintain records of arrestees in such a manner as to be able to identify individuals according to the above classifications, therefore the department does not have possession, custody, or control of any such record and is not required by law to create one upon request. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Gerhardson argues “that Chicopee Police did not perform an adequate search for records. It is likely the records I seek are segregable from some database or combination thereof such as the FBI’s unified crime reporting system, or the Massachusetts Fusion Center gang database.” He further argues that “if the CPD has access to the information I seek, it should be compelled to provide it to the extent provided by law. Segregating records specific to my request is not the same thing as creating a new record.” Reasonable Description of Records Sought Mr. Gerhardson is advised that a public records request must reasonably describe the records sought. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). In Chawla, 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).

Officer Anouson Souvannesane SPR25/2406 Page 3 August 28, 2025 Conclusion Based on the forgoing, I find it is unclear which specific records Mr. Gerhardson seeks. Mr. Gerhardson may wish to modify or clarify his request to the Department in order to provide the sufficient particularity needed in order to search the Department’s records. G. L. c 66, § 10(a)(i) (the request must reasonably describe the public record sought). Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Gerhardson wishes to submit another public records request to the Department as outlined above, and is unsatisfied with the response, he may again appeal that response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jonathan Gerhardson