Brian McCarter v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20252963)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 17, 2025 SPR25/2963 Christine O’Donnell, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel Office of the Legal Advisor Boston Police Department 1 City Hall Square Boston, MA 02201 Dear Attorney O’Donnell: I have received the petition of Brian McCarter appealing the response of the Boston 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 June 17, 2025, Mr. McCarter requested the following: All emails, attachments, or records of crime statistics sent to or from [identified individuals] from January 1, 2023 to the present[.] This request includes, but is not limited to: [1] Statistical summaries or compilations of crime data; [2] Weekly or monthly incident reports; [3] COMPSTAT reports or briefings; [4] Internal crime dashboards, charts, or spreadsheets; [5] Any crime data prepared for or discussed in command staff meetings; [6] Any related emails or documents forwarded, received, or sent by these individuals that include or attach crime statistics. The Department initially responded on June 18, 2025, assigning the request reference number B001676-061725. Previous Appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR25/2015 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 16, 2025) and SPR25/2064 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 30, 2025). On July 16, 2025, the Department stated that its search for responsive records generated 6,015 documents with a total of 54,101 pages, and cited Jaideep Chawla v. 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

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/2963 Page 2 October 17, 2025 Dept. of Revenue to deny the request. In my July 30th determination, I encouraged Mr. McCarter and the Department to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Following additional correspondence between the parties, the Department provided a further response on September 17, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. McCarter petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2963, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the Department provided a supplemental response on October 16, 2025. 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 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 September 17th Response In its September 17, 2025 response, the Department provided Mr. McCarter with a website link and stated: The Department recognizes that it has an obligation to suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope… This website contains crime data statistics. The Department is willing to work with you to narrow down this request. Please let me know if you would like to discuss further and we can set up a time to discuss. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. McCarter argued that the Department has not been responsive to his offers to receive records on a rolling basis nor has it proposed any modifications to narrow the scope of the request. In addition, Mr. McCarter stated:

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/2963 Page 3 October 17, 2025 The Boston Police Department has refused to produce any records, claiming the volume of search results makes the request too burdensome and vague… At no point did the Department engage in the required collaborative narrowing process under § 10(b)(vii) or SPR25/2064. In the Department’s supplemental response on October 16, 2025, the Department stated: Since this request is looking for summaries of crime statistics, the Department felt that this website could be a starting point and may contain the information that the requester is looking for… The Department has released COMPSTAT presentations to you under previous requests. The Department has also released calls for service reports to you under other requests. The Department is also willing to work with you to narrow this request. The Department did not receive your emails offering compromise and this request is not closed. The Department is happy to collaborate with you on this request and is willing to set up a time to discuss this with you. Please be advised that in Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, the Suffolk Superior Court, in its Memorandum of Decision and Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, stated: [The requester] has a right to seek public records from his government, provided he does so in a reasonable manner. [The agencies], in turn, have a right not to be inundated with drain-the-ocean records requests, provided they fulfill the basic expectations of the [Public Records Law] in a fair and transparent manner. See Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, Suffolk Sup. No. 2284CV02061-C, at 3 (February 14, 2023). The Court in Friedman noted, “the extraordinary volume of records called for in this case has compelled the Defendants to produce responsive materials in a ‘rolling’ fashion, rather than in accordance with deadlines contemplated by the [Public Records Law].” Id. at 1. In addition, please be aware that the request must reasonably describe the specific records sought. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). In a recent case, 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. l 784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019). Based on Department’s responses and the information provided in the appeal petition, where both parties have indicated a willingness to engage in modifying the scope of the request, this office encourages Mr. McCarter and the Department to continue to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a municipality

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/2963 Page 4 October 17, 2025 shall suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the municipality to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Conclusion If outstanding issues remain after Mr. McCarter and the Department communicate further as described above, Mr. McCarter may file an appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Brian McCarter