MA Public Records Search
← Back to Search

David Webb v. Worcester, City of (SPR 20252840)

Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records · Filed 09-26-2025

ClosedAppealPetitioner Won

SPR 20252840 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by David Webb concerning records held by Worcester, City of, opened 09-26-2025. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records.

Case Details

Case Number
20252840
Case Type
Appeal
Case Subtype
Initial
Status
Closed
Requester
David Webb
Custodian
Worcester, City of
Date Opened
09-26-2025
Date Closed
10-08-2025

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 October 8, 2025 SPR25/2840 Michael Vigneux Records Access Officer City of Worcester 455 Main Street Worcester, MA 01608 Dear Mr. Vigneux: I have received the petition of David Webb appealing the response of the City of Worcester (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 19, 2025, Mr. Webb requested, “all police reports and body-worn footage from the officers assigned to route car 66 April 27th 2025 between 11am and 2pm.” The City responded on September 19, 2025, and assigned the request reference number P077228- 091925. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Webb petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2840, 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 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

Michael Vigneux SPR25/2840 Page 2 October 8, 2025 The City’s September 19th Response In its September 19, 2025 response, the City stated, “’route car numbers’ is not a searchable field. Therefore, no records could be located based on the information provided in the request.” Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Webb states, “I know the requested records do exist, due to first hand interactions with officers, and ensuring their body-worn cameras were enable[d], but the city appears to be intent on withholding the records I am requesting, without confirming or denying if they exist by blaming the ‘search fields’ in their software.” Based on the information provided in Mr. Webb’s appeal petition and the City’s response, it is unclear whether the City possesses records responsive to Mr. Webb’s 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). Additionally, 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 City must clarify whether it possesses responsive records. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Webb 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. Mr. Webb may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: David Webb