David Curtis v. Haverhill, City of - Police Department (SPR 20252594)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 12, 2025 SPR25/2594 Aniela Ricci Records Clerk Haverhill Police Department 40 Bailey Boulevard Haverhill, MA 01830 Dear Ms. Ricci: I have received the petition of David Curtis, Esq., of the Law Office of David D. Curtis, Jr., LLC., appealing the response of the Haverhill Police Department (Department) to two requests for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 13, 2025, Attorney Curtis requested, “[m]otor vehicle accident police reports and crash/operator reports from August 6, 2025 – August 12, 2025.” On August 20, 2025, Attorney Curtis requested, “[m]otor vehicle accident police reports and crash/operator reports from August 13, 2025 – August 19, 2025.” The Department provided a response to both requests on August 20, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Attorney Curtis petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2594, 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. Att’y 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 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

Aniela Ricci SPR25/2594 Page 2 September 12, 2025 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 20th Response In its August 20, 2025 response, the Department denied Attorney Curtis’ requests and advised the following: The Haverhill Police Department has recently experienced a significant increase in requests for motor vehicle/pedestrian accident reports, particularly from entities seeking records for commercial purposes. While we continue to support transparency and timely access to information, the volume and nature of these requests require substantial staff time and resources. Therefore, this increase has caused us to review our current practice and determine whether requests are commercial purposes. . . . During our telephone conversations of August 11, 2025 and August 14, 2025, [Attorney Curtis] indicated that [his] weekly requests for the motor vehicle accident reports are for “marketing/commercial” purposes. In that [his] weekly requests are clearly for commercial purposes only, the Haverhill Police Department is denying [his] requests pursuant to Mass General Laws, c. 66, s. 10(d)(ix). . . . Current Appeal In his September 2, 2025 appeal, Attorney Curtis cites G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ix) and asserts, “[m]y law office collects information from the police reports and submits an information brochure to victims of motor vehicle accidents. The brochure promotes citizen oversight of the law. . . .” He further notes, “[i]f the motor vehicle accident victim contracts with my office, I make a profit if I settle their case.” Requests Solely for a Commercial Purpose The Supervisor of Records may deny an appeal for, among other reasons, if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: the public records request is made solely for a commercial purpose. 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b)(3). Please be advised that the term “commercial purpose” as used in the Public Records Law shall mean: the sale or resale of any portion of the public record or the use of information from the public record to advance the requester’s strategic business interests in a

Aniela Ricci SPR25/2594 Page 3 September 12, 2025 manner that the requester can reasonably expect to make a profit, and shall not include gathering or reporting news or gathering information to promote citizen oversight or further the understanding of the operation or activities of government or for academic, scientific, journalistic or public research or education. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ix). Where these requests are being made by Attorney Curtis in order to identify and solicit victims of motor vehicle accidents for prospective legal representation by his law office, I decline to opine on this matter. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b); 950 C.M.R. 32.02. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Attorney Curtis is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: David Curtis, Esq.