Duarte, Ryan v. New Bedford, City of - Office of The City Solicitor (SPR 20260701)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 11, 2026 SPR26/0701 Katherine Schuko, Esq. Assistant City Solicitor City of New Bedford 133 William Street New Bedford, MA 02740 Dear Attorney Schuko: I have received the petition of Ryan Duarte appealing the response of the City of New Bedford (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 26, 2025, Mr. Duarte requested the following: . . . The official narrative and supplemental reports [concerning an identified August 25, 2015 incident] list the following sworn [New Bedford Police Department] officers as involved: . . . [1] [An identified] Officer . . . - primary narrative author[;] [2] [An identified] Officer . . . - stop, detention, suspect designation[;] [3] [An identified] Officer . . . - Use of Force Report[;] [4] [An identified] Officer . . . - vehicle search / observations[;] [5] [An identified] Officer . . . - vehicle observations[;] [6] [An identified] Lt. . . . (referenced in related filings)[;] [7] [An identified] Officer . . . (involved in related dispatch and Fl reports)[;] [8] Any officer listed in CAD logs, PT-1 transport logs, or supplemental reports for [an identified incident number][.] . . . For each of the above officers, I request certified copies (or electronic copies) of the following: [1] Surety Bond / Official Documentation [a] Any surety bond, fidelity bond, blanket bond, liability bond, or insurance instrument required as a condition of holding office or employment; [b] The issuing carrier/company, bond number, amount, coverage 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

Katherine Schuko, Esq. SPR26/0701 Page 2 March 11, 2026 summary, and effective dates; [c] Proof of filing of the bond with the City Clerk per M.G.L. c. 41[;] [2] Sworn Oath of Office [a] The officer’s signed and executed oath of office pursuant to M.G.L. c. 41, §18 and any related filing or certification documents; [b] Date sworn, administering official, and copy of the recorded oath; [c] Name/title of the administering authority[;] [d] Filing certification (City Clerk or NBPD)[;] [3] Filing Certifications [a] The record custodian confirming where the oath and bond are legally filed and maintained[;] [b] Any change of status, suspensions, or lapse periods . . .[;] [4] Disciplinary Records / Internal Affairs Files . . . [a] All sustained, unsustained, pending, not sustained, exonerated, or unfounded disciplinary complaints[;] [b] All citizen complaints, internal complaints, and administrative investigations[;] [c] Any disciplinary actions, reprimands, suspensions, counseling memos, or findings[;] [d] Any Professional Standards Division investigative reports[;] [e] Any Brady/Giglio disclosures or credibility-related findings[;] This request includes, but is not limited to, files maintained under: Internal Affairs/ Professional Standards[,] Early Warning Systems[,] Supervisor Reviews[,] Complaint Registers[,] Disciplinary Notifications to POST Commission (M.G.L. c. 6E)[,] [and] Any documents submitted to or received from the Massachusetts POST Commission regarding these officers[;] [5] Training & Certification. . . [a] POST certification status[;] [b] Use-of-force training records[;] [c] Any decertifications, suspensions, or pending matters . . .[.] Previous Appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR25/3776 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 8, 2026) and SPR26/0252 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 9, 2026). In my February 9th determination, I found that the City had sufficiently explained how its fee estimate of $437.50 is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). Subsequently on February 9, 2026, Mr. Duarte modified his request to seek the following records pertaining to an identified officer:

Katherine Schuko, Esq. SPR26/0701 Page 3 March 11, 2026 [1] Any sworn oath or affirmation of office executed by the above-named individual, including but not limited to any oath evidencing compliance with Article VI of the Massachusetts Constitution or applicable statute; [2] Any surety bond, fidelity bond, or blanket bond coverage documentation applicable to the above-named individual in their official capacity; or [3] If no such oath and/or bond exists, a written certification of non-existence identifying: - Whether the individual is classified as an officer, employee, or agent; and - The legal basis (statute, ordinance, charter provision, or policy) for any claimed exemption from oath and/or bonding requirements. The City responded on February 27, 2026. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Duarte petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0252, 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 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 City’s February 27th Response In its February 27, 2026 response, the City provided a responsive “Certificate of Appointment,” redacted pursuant to Exemption (o) of the Public Records Law. In addition, the City stated: You may access the City’s Charter and ordinances by visiting [an identified website]. Chapter 19, Article V provides the City’s public safety provisions. The City does not have any responsive records to number 2 of your request.

Katherine Schuko, Esq. SPR26/0701 Page 4 March 11, 2026 Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Duarte argued: The City produced a Certificate of Appointment but did not produce any sworn oath or affirmation of office as requested. The Certificate of Appointment is not a sworn oath document and does not contain oath language. Additionally, the City stated it does not have responsive records to item #2 (bond documentation), but did not provide: • A written certification of non-existence of oath records • A written certification of non-existence of bond records • Classification of the position (officer/employee/agent) • Legal basis for exemption from oath or bonding requirements It remains unclear whether: [1] A sworn oath document exists but was not produced, or [2] No oath document exists. It appears Mr. Duarte is not contesting the redactions to the responsive record. Additional Records Based on the information provided in the appeal petition and the City’s response, it is unclear whether the City possesses additional records responsive Mr. Duarte’s narrowed February 9th request, other than the identified “Certificate of Appointment.” Specifically, the City must clarify whether it possesses any “sworn oath document,” as requested by Mr. Duarte. 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). Custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist the requestor in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). The City must clarify this matter. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Duarte 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. Duarte may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Katherine Schuko, Esq. SPR26/0701 Page 5 March 11, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Ryan Duarte