Hansen, Douglas v. Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission (SPR 20260449)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 2, 2026 SPR26/0449 Kerri Johnson Records Access Officer Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission 84 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Dear Ms. Johnson: I have received the petition of Douglas Hansen appealing the response of the Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission (Commission) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 6, 2026, Mr. Hansen requested, “…all records relating to the POST Commission suspension of [an identified officer] of the Boston Police Department.” The Commission responded on February 5, 2026. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Hansen petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0449, 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

Kerri Johnson SPR26/0449 Page 2 March 2, 2026 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 Commission’s February 5th Response In its February 5, 2026 response, the Commission provided a list of suspended officers in which the identified officer was listed and cited the statute, G. L. c. 6E, § 8(c)(2) as follows: The division of police standards may initiate a preliminary inquiry into the conduct of a law enforcement officer upon receipt of a complaint, report or other credible evidence that is deemed sufficient by the commission that the law enforcement officer may have engaged in prohibited conduct. All proceedings and records relating to a preliminary inquiry or initial staff review used to determine whether to initiate an inquiry shall be confidential, except that the executive director may turn over to the attorney general, the United States Attorney or a district attorney of competent jurisdiction evidence which may be used in a criminal proceeding. G. L. c. 6E, § 8(c)(2). In its response, the Commission stated the following: The Commission construes your request as not seeking any “records relating to a preliminary inquiry or initial staff review used to determine whether to initiate an inquiry,” as any such records would be “confidential” by statute. M.G.L. c. 6E, § 8(c)(2). Any such documents thus would also not constitute “public records” pursuant to M.G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26(a), which exempts from that category any materials or data that are “specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute.” At no point will the Commission confirm or deny the existence of a preliminary inquiry or whether it is determining to initiate one, and this letter should not be construed as providing any such confirmation or denial. The Commission has no records responsive to your request, at this time. Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Hansen asserts, “[b]y publicly suspending the Officer who is the subject of the request, the Commission acknowledged they are beyond the stage of ‘preliminary inquiry or initial staff review’… the statute cited by the Commission clearly does not relate to nor cover entirely of the records requested, or support a blanket denial of all records relating to the suspension of the subject Officer.” Based on the Commission’s response, although the above referenced statute exempts certain records from disclosure, it is unclear how all the requested records fall within the statute. Specifically, it is not clear whether all the withheld records fall within “[a]ll proceedings and

Kerri Johnson SPR26/0449 Page 3 March 2, 2026 records relating to a preliminary inquiry or initial staff review used to determine whether to initiate an inquiry…” Consequently, it is unclear how G. L. c. 6E, § 8(c)(2), permits the Commission to withhold the requested records, in their entirety, from disclosure. Additionally, it is unclear from the Commission’s response what specific records the Commission intends to withhold. The Commission must identify the records, categories of records, or portions of records it intends to withhold under any exemptions of the Public Records Law. 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”). Conclusion Accordingly, the Commission is ordered to provide Mr. Hansen 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. Hansen may appeal the substantive nature of the Commission’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Douglas Hansen