Coleman, Rory v. Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission (SPR 20260888)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 27, 2026 SPR26/0888 Randall E. Ravitz, Esq. General Counsel Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission 84 State Street, Suite 200 Boston, MA 02109 Dear Attorney Ravitz: I have received the petition of Rory M. Coleman 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 December 9, 2025, Mr. Coleman requested the following records: Regarding IAD Case 2022-0505: [1] Name and title of BPD employee who submitted sustained findings to POST[;] [2] Date and time POST received the submission[;] [3] Name and title of POST employee who entered findings on my record[;] [4] Date and time findings were published to my public record[;] [5] All documents BPD submitted to POST regarding this case[;] [6] All communications between BPD and POST (emails, letters, phone logs)[;] [7] Source of the phrase “restricted space” – this language appears in no BPD rule or IAD document[.] Regarding IAD Case 2022-0495: [8] All documents BPD submitted to POST[;] [9] All communications between BPD and POST (Note: The City admitted in MCAD Para. 38 that “there was an error made by IAD in recording the complaint” in this case.) 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

Randall E. Ravitz, Esq. SPR26/0888 Page 2 March 27, 2026 General Records: [10] Any notice sent to me before or after publication of either case, including date and method[;] [11] POST policies governing notice to officers before publication of sustained findings[;] [12] POST policies governing verification of submission accuracy before publication[;] [13] Records of any amendments, corrections, or disputes to my POST record[;] [14] POST’s procedures when a submitting agency admits error in the underlying case[;] [15] Any legal review conducted by POST before publishing the “felony” characterization, including analysis of whether the elements of M.G.L. c. 272 § 99 were met[.] The Commission initially responded on December 23, 2025 and February 2, 2026. Previous Appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR26/0001 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 15, 2026) and SPR26/0355 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 17, 2026). In my February 17th determination, I closed the appeal in light of the Commission providing a further response on February 17, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Commission’s response, Mr. Coleman petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0888, 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.

Randall E. Ravitz, Esq. SPR26/0888 Page 3 March 27, 2026 The Commission’s February 2nd and February 17th Responses In its February 2, 2026 response, the Commission provided records responsive to Items 8, 9, and 13 of the request, but stated that it has no records responsive to Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, or 15. In addition, the Commission stated: 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)… 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. As the Commission would take such an approach in responding to a request by one other than the subject, it appropriately takes such an approach here… Regarding Items 11, 12, and 14, the Commission noted that it was withholding certain responsive records under Exemptions (f) and (n) of the Public Records Law and stated: [T]he Commission’s policies and procedures can be found under title 555 of the Code of Massachusetts Regulations. This includes, but is not limited to, Commission policies regarding the transmittal of complaints by agencies to the Commission (section 1.01(1)), its databases and dissemination of information (chapter 8.00), and the maintenance, reporting, and audits of law enforcement records and information (chapter 12.00). Mr. Coleman’s previous appeal petition in SPR26/0355 concerned only the Commission’s contention that it possesses no records responsive to Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the request. In its February 17, 2026 response, the Commission stated: In Mr. Coleman’s response, he references the Commission’s assertion that it has no records responsive to Requests 1 through 7, concerning IAD 2022-0505, at this time. He views the Commission’s publishing of sustained findings from that case as evidence that “[t]he records exist,” … However, the Commission explained that it was construing Mr. Coleman’s 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 and thus not public records. M.G.L. c. 6E, § 8(c)(2); M.G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26(a). Mr. Coleman has not indicated otherwise.

Randall E. Ravitz, Esq. SPR26/0888 Page 4 March 27, 2026 As the Commission further explained, just as it would take that approach in responding to a request by a different individual, it appropriately took such an approach here… Mr. Coleman’s comparison of the present appeal to a hypothetical federal investigation discovery request is inapplicable here… Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Coleman stated: The Commission applied a single exemption, M.G.L. c. 6E, section 8(c)(2), as a blanket denial to all fifteen of my requests without differentiating between administrative records, policy documents, amendment logs, and investigative materials… The Commission also shifted its position from “no records” on February 2, 2026 to “exempt records” on February 17, 2026 without acknowledging the change. These are mutually exclusive positions. If records exist and are being withheld, the Commission must identify each withheld record and the specific exemption that applies. If no records exist, the Commission must explain how POST Actions A-00020931 and A-00020932 were posted to a public database without generating any administrative records. Additional Records Based on the Commission’s responses and the information provided in the appeal petition, it is unclear whether the Commission possesses any additional records responsive to the request. The Commission must clarify whether it possesses any of the records referenced in Mr. Coleman’s appeal petition that he claims are missing from the Commission’s previous production. 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). Burden of Specificity Further, to the extent the Commission is withholding records responsive to Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the request, the Commission must identify the records in its possession that it intends to withhold from disclosure. To deny access to a record or portion of a record under the Public Records Law, a records access officer must identify the record, categories of records, or portions of the record it intends to withhold. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3)(c)(4). Consequently, the Commission must explain with specificity how Exemption (a) applies to any withheld records. It should be noted that any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90 (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). The Commission must clarify these matters.

Randall E. Ravitz, Esq. SPR26/0888 Page 5 March 27, 2026 Conclusion Accordingly, the Commission 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 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: Rory M. Coleman Kerri Johnson Kimberly Shatford, Esq.