Riva, James v. Framingham, City of - Police Department (SPR 20261117)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 30, 2026 SPR26/1117 Colleen Kehew Records Access Officer Framingham Police Department 150 Concord Street Framingham, MA 01702 Dear Ms. Kehew I have received the petition of James Riva appealing the response of the Framingham 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 December 15, 2025, Mr. Riva requested, “[a]ny and all police records regarding [an identified individual] from January 1, 1987 to January 11, 2006 formerly residing at [an identified address].” Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR26/0092 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 22, 2026). In my January 22nd determination, I ordered the Department to provide Mr. Riva with a written response. Subsequently, the Department responded on January 22, 2026. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Riva petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1117, 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 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

Colleen Kehew SPR26/1117 Page 2 March 30, 2026 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 January 22nd Response In its January 22, 2026 response, the Department stated, “[u]fortunately, we do not have any method of searching for records by address during these dates, as the records are not digital. Based on the information provided about the specific incident on January 11, 2006 regarding [an identified individual], the Department has conducted a diligent search and is unable to locate responsive records in our system, likely due to the retention time on records of this type. If additional information becomes available to you and you would like to provide additional details to narrow your search to specific incidents, you may submit a new request.” Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Riva states, “[a]s you an see from exhibits C to G, which I obtained from an alternative source, the records do exist, its just that the Framingham police do not wish to share them. I replied to their reply (exhibit H) and told them I can prove they are being dishonest. To advance a falsehood like the poilice records are not digital in this day and age is foul. I am sure your office has papers or other records indicating that they applied for, and received funding multiple times to digitize their police records, including older police records. I would appreciate any muscle you might care to exert to get the Framingham Police Dept Records division to comply with my reasonable request and their answer is overdue.” Additional Records Based on Mr. Riva’s claims, in conjunction with the Department’s response, it is unclear if the Department 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 Department must clarify whether any responsive records exist. Further, based on the Department’s response, stating that it “. . . conducted a diligent search and is unable to locate responsive records in our system, likely due to the retention time on records of this type[,]” I find that the Department must explain whether the requested records existed and were destroyed, or whether the records did not initially exist. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii), (b)(ii). If records were destroyed, the Department must demonstrate whether it followed proper records retention protocol. The Department must clarify this matter.

Colleen Kehew SPR26/1117 Page 3 March 30, 2026 Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Riva 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. Riva may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: James Riva