Lianne Bishop v. Dedham, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20252700)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 24, 2025 SPR25/2700 Officer Ronald C. Pucci Records Access Officer Dedham Police Department 26 Bryant Street Dedham, MA 02026 Dear Officer Pucci: I have received the petition of Lianne Bishop appealing the response of the Dedham 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 28, 2025, Ms. Bishop requested a specified July 25, 2025 incident report, described as “Dedham Community House called for police assistance in dealing with an unruly parent during the pick-up from camp.” The Department responded on July 30, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. Bishop petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/2700, 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 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 Ronald C. Pucci SPR25/2700 Page 2 September 24, 2025 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 July 30th Response In its July 30, 2025 response, the Department states that “that matter has been turned over to the Dedham District Court,” and further states that “the matter cannot be released by the Police once it has been turned over to the court.” Burden of Specificity The Department’s July 30th response did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be on the custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption to withhold or redact records. Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear which exemption the Department is citing in order to withhold the requested records. Additionally, it is unclear from the Department’s response which specific records the Department intends to withhold. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based”). See also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511; Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Consequently, the Department must identify the records, categories of records, or portions of records it intends to withhold, and explain with specificity how an exemption applies to withhold or redact the records. It is further uncertain why the records must be withheld in their entirety. The Department must explain whether the records can be redacted so that segregable portions can be provided. See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90. Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Bishop with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) 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. Ms. Bishop may further appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Officer Ronald C. Pucci SPR25/2700 Page 3 September 24, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Lianne Bishop