Williams, Christian v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20261063)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 26, 2026 SPR26/1063 Christine O’Donnell, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel Boston Police Department 1 City Hall Square, Room Boston, MA 02201 Dear Attorney O’Donnell: I have received the petition of Christian A. Williams, of Harvard Law School, Criminal Justice Institute, 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 15, 2026, Mr. Williams requested, “…the public portions of the internal affairs complaints/ investigations, and related correspondence, statements of witnesses, police and incident reports filed against [identified] Boston Police Sgt.” The Department responded on January 15, 2026, January 29, 2026, January 30, 2026 and February 12, 2026. Unsatisfied with the responses, Mr. Williams petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1063, 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. See 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. 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. SPR26/1063 Page 2 March 26, 2026 If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. See 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 January 15th, January 29th, January 30th, and February 12th Responses On January 15, 2026, the Department provided the reference number R000221-011526 for tracking purposes. On January 29, 2026, the Department stated, “[t]he Department was reassigned this request today. Your request was assigned to OPAT but it appears that you are looking for Department IAD files for a specific officer. A response is due on this request tomorrow. Since the Department was reassigned this request today, we are asking that you agree to an additional ten days for us to gather the records.” In its January 30, 2026 response, the Department stated, [the Department has] included the Officer’s resume as an initial response. This record has been released to the Public Records Center. Click the link below to login to the Records Center and retrieve the requested records.” The Department cited Exemption (c) to redact certain records and Exemption (f) to withhold other records. On February 12, 2026, the Department stated, “I am waiting for the IAD files. Once I receive them, I will prioritize your request because I understand that it is over ten days. The Department is working on getting the records.” Current Appeal In his March 23, 2026 appeal to this office, Mr. Williams stated, “I am writing to appeal the attached public records request to Boston Police Department … BPD has provided an initial ‘IAD Resume’ listing of the officer’s misconduct record, but they have not provided the full detailed documentation.” Upon review, it does not appear that Mr. Williams is contesting the Department’s application of Exemptions (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law to the requested records. Timeliness in Providing Records G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) provides, in pertinent part, that if the magnitude or difficulty of the request unduly burdens the other responsibilities of the agency or municipality such that the agency or municipality cannot provide records within 10 business days, the agency or municipality must inform the requestor in writing within 10 business days. With respect to the timeframe to produce responsive records, the written response shall: identify a reasonable timeframe in which the agency or municipality shall produce the public records sought; provided, that for an agency, the timeframe shall not

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR26/1063 Page 3 March 26, 2026 exceed 15 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records and for a municipality the timeframe shall not exceed 25 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records; and provided further, that the requestor may voluntarily agree to a response date beyond the timeframes set forth herein. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Where Mr. Williams’ request was originally submitted on January 15, 2026, and the Department has not provided the outstanding responsive records, I find the Department has not met its burden in responding to the request in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Accordingly, I find the Department must provide an estimated date as to when it expects to complete its review and provide the remaining records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). To the extent possible, the Department must provide responsive records on a rolling basis. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Williams with a response, 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. Williams may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within 90 calendar days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Christian A. Williams