Adam J. Pires v. Dalton, Town of (SPR 20252662)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 18, 2025 SPR25/2662 Rebecca L. Whitaker Public Records Officer Town of Dalton 462 Main St. Dalton, MA 01226 Dear Ms. Whitaker: I have received the petition of Adam J. Pires appealing the response of the Town of Dalton (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 12, 2025 Mr. Pires requested “[a]ny/all call logs associated with Dalton Police [an identified call number] to include, but not limited to, Hinsdale Police, Hinsdale Fire, Windsor Police, Windsor Fire, Dalton Police and any call logs to outside agencies for assistance in regards to this call.” Subsequently on July 13, 2025, Mr. Pires modified his original request as follows: Any/all call logs/BWC/Dashcam associated with Dalton Police Call #23-4141 to include, but not limited to Hinsdale Police, Hinsdale Fire. Windsor Police, Windsor Fire, Dalton Police and any call logs to outside agencies for assistance in regards to Dalton Police Call #23-4141. The Town responded on July 18, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Pires petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2662, 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. 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

Rebecca L. Whitaker SPR25/2662 Page 2 September 18, 2025 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 Town’s July 18th response In its July 18, 2025 response, the Town stated, with regard to the requested call logs, “[a]ttached please find the requested documents. Redactions were made pursuant to exemption (c), Medical, of the Public Records Law.” With regard to the requested dashcam/body worn camera (BWC) footage, the Town stated “[t]he Town is not in possession of any records responsive to [this] request…” Current appeal In his appeal, Mr. Pires states “I would like to appeal my records request denial I received from Dalton Police Dept. As I am aware, it is policy to record every call for service. Per the police reports I have, [two identified police officers] both responded to this incident. The fact they do not have the dashcam/BWC from [an identified police officer] for this incident is quite disconcerting. Especially, as it involves one of their own officers, [an identified police officer], committing multiple crimes.” Based on Mr. Pires’ claims, in conjunction with the Town’s response, it is unclear if the Town possesses any records responsive to his request. The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). However, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). Consequently, the Town must clarify whether any responsive records exist. If records were destroyed, I find that the Town must demonstrate whether it followed proper records retention protocol. The Town must clarify this matter. Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Mr. Pires with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations 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. Pires may appeal the substantive nature of the Town’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Rebecca L. Whitaker SPR25/2662 Page 3 September 18, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Adam J. Pires