Raymond, Jeff v. Worcester County District Attorney's Office (SPR 20260853)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 24, 2026 SPR25/0853 Mark Relation, Esq. Assistant District Attorney Records Access Officer Worcester County District Attorney’s Office 225 Main Street, G301 Worcester, MA 01608 Dear Attorney Relation: I have received the petition of Jeff Raymond, of Mass Transparency, appealing the response of the Worcester County District Attorney’s Office (Office) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § l0A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 31, 2025, Mr. Raymond requested the following records: [1] Data compiled by the DAO regarding “suspected misconduct” and / or “information that may be helpful to the accused” related to police officers within the Worcester District and under the Worcester DAO’s jurisdiction, broadly construed. [a] This should not encompass solely any information disseminated to or Distributed by the POST Commission, but rather documentation used by the DAO in service to their day-to-day prosecutorial obligations. [b] This should include distributions and / or other communications from police departments within the DAO’s jurisdiction regarding “suspected misconduct.” [c] This should include information collected between 1 January 2015. The Office responded on January 2, 2026, February 17, 2026, and March 4, 2025. Unsatisfied with the responses, Mr. Raymond petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0853, 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 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

Mark Relation, Esq. SPR26/0853 Page 2 March 24, 2026 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. Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Raymond states, “[t]he Worcester County District Attorney’s Office has already acknowledged that these records exist … I deliberately requested records that the WCDAO acknowledges they collect and disseminate. The WCDAO is obligated to provide them. There are no exemptions that encompass this information, and there is no reason for this continued delay in providing the requested records. With all this said, I still seek my requested records in full as required by the public records law.” The Office’s January 2nd, February 17th and March 4th Responses In its January 2, 2026 response, the Office stated, “[y]ou write that you want your request to ‘include information collected between 1 January 2015’ but, and this might just be a typo, there is no end date there. Please clarify the time frame you wish to be covered by your request.” In a reply to the Office’s January 2nd response, Mr. Raymond stated, “I do not know your exact retention schedule for documentation like this, so my expectation was to go with January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2025, or the extent of your document retention within that time frame. Apologies for missing that error.” In its February 17, 2026 response, the Office stated, “I have been working on your request, and expect to be able to provide a response soon, but unfortunately require some additional time to complete our response. I am asking for an additional 10 business days to review our records for all responsive documents, but will provide you with our response as soon as it is available.” In its March 4, 2026 response, the Office asserted, “[w]e are unable to satisfy your request. Our office does not create or maintain any centralized data or database regarding or tracking such information in such a fashion. For data relating to “suspected misconduct” you

Mark Relation, Esq. SPR26/0853 Page 3 March 24, 2026 may wish to contact the Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Commission, who may have responsive records in their possession.” Based on Mr. Raymond’s claims, in conjunction with the Office’s responses, it is unclear if the Office possesses any 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 Office must clarify whether any responsive records exist. Conclusion Accordingly, the Office is ordered to provide Mr. Raymond 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. Raymond may appeal the substantive nature of the Office’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jeff Raymond