Coleman, Rory v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20260423)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 13, 2026 SPR26/0423 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 police officer [an identified individual] . . . is the subject of investigation, complaint, or inquiry from January 1, 2020 to present.” Including the following: [1] All IAD case files and complaints where . . . 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[.] The Department responded on February 2, 2026, and assigned reference number B000281-012326 to the request. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Coleman petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0423, 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. 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. SPR26/0423 Page 2 February 13, 2026 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 76-00[.]” Current appeal In his February 6, 2026 appeal, Mr. Coleman states the following: [t]he Department stated it was providing “76-00” without explanation. Upon review, the production is IAD Case 076-00, a complaint filed by [an identified individual] in August 2000 at Area E-18, in which . . . was exonerated on use of force and received a finding of not sustained on respectful treatment. This case predates the requested period by twenty years. . . . [W]hat remains outstanding[:] [1] All IAD case files within the requested date range of January 1, 2020 to present, including but not limited to a complaint filed by [an identified individual] against police officer [an identified individual] arising from his assignment to the Crime Scene Response Unit, which falls squarely within the requested period. [2] For any responsive case files, the complete records including audio/video recordings, transcripts, witness statements, Form 26 reports, findings, determinations, dispositions, and exhibits. [3] Written confirmation of whether additional IAD investigations exist within the requested period beyond those produced. Based on Mr. Coleman’ 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 any additional responsive records exist.

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR26/0423 Page 3 February 13, 2026 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 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