Coleman, Rory v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20260422)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 13, 2026 SPR26/0422 Christine O’Donnell, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel Boston Police Department 1 City Hall Square Boston, MA 02201 Dear Attorney O’Donnell: I have received the petition of Rory M. Coleman 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 January 23, 2026, Mr. Coleman requested, “Internal Affairs Division records where [an identified] Sgt. Det. . . . is the subject of investigation, complaint, or inquiry from January 1, 2009 to present [as follows]:” [1] All IAD case files and complaints where [an identified individual] is the subject officer[;] [2] All Form 26 reports, witness statements, and investigative summaries[;] [3] All findings, determinations, and dispositions[;] [4] All sustained findings, disciplinary actions, or adverse personnel actions[]; [5] Complete file for IAD Case No. E2009-084, including current status[.] The Department responded on February 2, 2026, and assigned reference number B000280-012326 to the request. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Coleman petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0422, 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). 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. SPR26/0422 Page 2 February 13, 2026 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 February 2nd Response In its February 2, 2026 response, the Department stated, “[t]he Department is providing the report for the Exam cases which includes IAD2021-0165, E2009-084 and P2010-148.” Current Appeal In his February 6, 2026 appeal, Mr. Coleman states, “[n]o further detail was provided about the scope of production or whether these are complete files…” Mr. Coleman further stated as follows: [1] Confirmation of whether the production includes complete case files or only summary reports for IAD2021-0165, E2009-084, and P2010-148. [2] Current status of E2009-084, as specifically requested. [3] All Form 26 reports, witness statements, and investigative summaries for each case. [4] All findings, determinations, and dispositions for each case. [5] Confirmation of whether additional IAD investigations exist beyond the three identified, covering the full period from January 1, 2009 to present. Based on Mr. Coleman’s claims, in conjunction with the Department’s response, it is unclear if the Department possesses any additional 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 Department must clarify whether additional responsive records exist. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Coleman 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

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR26/0422 Page 3 February 13, 2026 pre@sec.state.ma.us. Mr. Coleman may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Rory M. Coleman