Coleman, Rory v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20260719)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 16, 2026 SPR26/0719 Christine O’Donnell, Esq. Records Access Officer Boston Police Department 1 City Hall Square, Room 615 Boston, MA 02201 Dear Attorney O’Donnell: I have received the petition of Rory 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 the following: All Boston Police Department Internal Affairs Division case files from January 1, 2020 to present where [a named individual] is the SUBJECT of an IAD investigation. If no IAD investigations have been opened against [the individual] during this period, please confirm in writing. The Department responded on February 2, 2026, and assigned reference number B000277-012326 to this request. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Coleman petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/0719, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the Department provided a further response to Mr. Coleman and this office on March 10, 2026. 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. SPR26/0719 Page 2 March 16, 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 and March 10th Responses In its February 2, 2026 response, the Department provided numerous records in redacted form, and stated that “for B000277-012326, attached are the cover letters, Lt./Sgt. Reports for IAD2020-0207 IAD2023-0071 and IAD2023-0072.” The Department also indicated that it redacted the records pursuant to Exemptions (c), (f), and (o) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c), (f), (o). In its March 10, 2026 response, the Department states that “[t]he Department provided you records responsive to this request on February 2, 2026. The Department provided you with the following IAD files: IAD2020-0207 IAD2023-0071 and IAD2023-0072.” Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Coleman argues the following: The Department provided cover letters and lieutenant’s/sergeant’s reports for three IAD cases but did not produce the complete case files as requested. . . . WHAT REMAINS OUTSTANDING 1. Complete case file for IAD2020-0207, including all audio/video recordings, transcripts, witness statements, Form 26s, findings, determinations, dispositions, and exhibits. 2. Complete case file for IAD2023-0071, including all audio/video recordings, transcripts, witness statements, Form 26s, findings, determinations, dispositions, and exhibits. 3. Complete case file for IAD2023-0072, including all audio/video recordings, transcripts, witness statements, Form 26s, findings, determinations, dispositions, and exhibits (with the noted Exemption (c) redaction). . . . I requested complete case files. The Department produced only cover letters and lieutenant’s/sergeant’s reports for each case. These are summaries, not complete files. The audio recordings, witness interviews, Form 26 reports, exhibits, findings, and dispositions for each case were not produced and no exemption was cited for their withholding.

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR26/0719 Page 3 March 16, 2026 I do not challenge the Exemption (c) redaction of a family member’s medical information in IAD2023-0072 or the Exemption (f) and (o) redactions of residential addresses. Those redactions appear appropriate. However, redacting specific information within produced documents does not excuse the failure to produce the remainder of the case files. Upon review of the appeal petition, I understand Mr. Coleman contends only that the Department possesses additional records responsive to his request, and does not object to the redactions made by the Department pursuant to Exemptions (c), (f) and (o) of the Public Records Law. Records in Existence; Possession, Custody, or Control Please be advised that 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). Further, under the Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). However, in accordance with the Public Records Law, 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). Based on the Department’s responses, and the information provided in Mr. Coleman’s appeal petition, it is unclear whether the Department possesses additional records responsive to Mr. Coleman’s request. If the Department does possess additional responsive records, it must either provide the records, or cite an exemption to the Public Records Law, and explain with specificity how such an exemption applies to withhold or redact the records. 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 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 (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. Coleman may further appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR26/0719 Page 4 March 16, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Rory Coleman