Mitchell
Kosht
Legal
Fellow
Strategic
Litigation Unit
(970)
618-1201
strategiclitigationunit@publiccounsel.net
June 25, 2021
Via
Email
Todd
Palmer
City
Clerk
150
Concord St
Framingham,
MA 01702
Re: Public Records Request
Dear Todd Palmer:
This is a request pursuant to Public Records Law, M.G.L. c. 66, § 10 for
records in the possession of the Framingham Police Department. Specifically,
I request the following information:
If the Framingham Police
Department or city of Framingham maintains an electronic record system which
pertains to investigations into allegations of police misconduct conducted by
the Internal Affairs Department, (however named; e.g, Internal Affairs Unit,
Department of Professional Standards, etc.), I request:
A report, spreadsheet, or
other flat file format (CSV, TSV, etc.) which includes as many of the
following fields of data as are recorded in the relevant electronic records
system, from 2010 to the present:
Unique case identifier
(Case number, complaint number, special order number, etc.)
Employee identification
number of each officer involved or accused;
Name of each officer
involved or accused;
Badge number of each
officer involved or accused;
Date of incident;
Type of incident (e.g.,
excessive force, use of pepper spray, etc.)
Summary of complaint;
Identifying number(s)
for related police reports
Date of complaint;
Race of complainant;
Sex of complainant;
Employee identification
number of investigating officer;
Name of investigating
officer;
Disposition of
complaint;
Date of disposition;
Date of external review
(i.e., by civilian oversight board);
Disposition of external
review;
Discipline imposed;
I recognize that agencies are
under no obligation to create new records in response to a public records
request. That said, extraction of information from a database or electronic record
system does not constitute creating a new record. See 950 CMR 32.07(1)(f). See
also Attorney Gen. v. District Att'y for Plymouth Dist., 484
Mass. 260, 275 (2020) (“where public records are in electronic form, as they
increasingly are and will be, a public records request that requires a
government entity to search its electronic database to extract requested data
does not mean that the extracted data constitute the creation of a new record
under the public records law”). Furthermore, record custodians are also
required to implement new record keeping systems and databases in such a way as
to allow for “retrieval of public portions of records to provide maximum public
access.” See 950 CMR 32.07(1)(e).
If the city of Framingham
and/or the Framingham Police Department does not maintain an electronic record
system pertaining to internal affairs investigations, I would request, for the
period of 2010 to the present, the following:
Any document, ledger,
report, or list, which summarizes investigations undertaken by the
Internal Affairs Unit (however named), and which may include a unique case
identifier (case number, complaint number, special order number, etc.),
the names of the officers involved, the substance of the complaint, and
the disposition of the investigation.
With respect to the form of production, we note that
relevant regulations require the production of records in an accessible,
commonly used electronic form, to the extent feasible. See 950 CMR
32.04(5)(d). Printing these records from a database or electronic system,
redacting them with a marker, and then re-scanning them, is generally not
consistent with these regulations; this process provides the digital records in
neither the preferred form nor in a “searchable machine-readable form.” 950 CMR
32.04(5)(d). If necessary, we welcome reasonable suggested modifications
pursuant to 950 CMR 32.06(2)(g).
If you believe that some portion of the documents
requested are exempt from disclosure or require redaction, please release any
reasonably segregable portions that are not exempt. In addition, please note
the applicable statutory exemption and explain why it applies to the redacted
portions. Please also note that the legislature has recently amended the
“personal privacy exemption,” G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c) so as to specifically
make investigations into law enforcement misconduct subject to disclosure. That
exemption to disclosure now reads:
(c) personnel and medical files or information and
any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the
disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
provided, however, that this subclause shall not apply to records related to
a law enforcement misconduct investigation.
G. L.
c. 4, § 7(26)(c), emphasized language added by St. 2020, c. 253,
§ 2 (effective Dec. 31, 2020). By the plain language of this statutory
change, the dispositions of internal affairs investigations may no longer be
redacted.
Because this request involves a matter of public
concern and is made on behalf of a state agency, we ask that you waive any
fees. CPCS is an agency dedicated to the legal defense and protection of
indigent individuals across the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. If you
decide not to waive fees, we request that you provide us with both a specific
estimate of fees and permit us to examine, at our election, the responsive
documents before deciding which portions to copy. Please note that 950
CMR 32.07(2)(m) provides: “a municipal records access officer shall not assess
a fee for the first two hours of time spent searching for, compiling,
segregating, redacting and reproducing a requested record in a municipality
with a population of over 20,000.”
Thank you for your anticipated prompt attention to
these requests. We look forward to receiving a response. Feel free
to contact me if you need any clarification of the requests set forth above.
Sincerely,
Mitchell Kosht
Please see the attached file responsive to your request.
Redactions of identifying witness information were made on pages 4, 6, 8, and 9 pursuant to Exemption (f) as the disclosures "would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest."
You have the righty to appeal this response to the Supervisor of Public Records or to file an action in Superior Court pursuant to G.L. c. 66, section 10A.
Request Date
2021-07-02
Agency Tracking
2021-1166
Acquisition Notes
This record was automatically imported from https://www.townforms.com/FOIADirect-FraminghamMACitizens/
Mitchell
Kosht
Legal
Fellow
Strategic
Litigation Unit
(970)
618-1201
strategiclitigationunit@publiccounsel.net
June 25, 2021
Via
Email
Todd
Palmer
City
Clerk
150
Concord St
Framingham,
MA 01702
Re: Public Records Request
Dear Todd Palmer:
This is a request pursuant to Public Records Law, M.G.L. c. 66, § 10 for
records in the possession of the Framingham Police Department. Specifically,
I request the following information:
If the Framingham Police
Department or city of Framingham maintains an electronic record system which
pertains to investigations into allegations of police misconduct conducted by
the Internal Affairs Department, (however named; e.g, Internal Affairs Unit,
Department of Professional Standards, etc.), I request:
A report, spreadsheet, or
other flat file format (CSV, TSV, etc.) which includes as many of the
following fields of data as are recorded in the relevant electronic records
system, from 2010 to the present:
Unique case identifier
(Case number, complaint number, special order number, etc.)
Employee identification
number of each officer involved or accused;
Name of each officer
involved or accused;
Badge number of each
officer involved or accused;
Date of incident;
Type of incident (e.g.,
excessive force, use of pepper spray, etc.)
Summary of complaint;
Identifying number(s)
for related police reports
Date of complaint;
Race of complainant;
Sex of complainant;
Employee identification
number of investigating officer;
Name of investigating
officer;
Disposition of
complaint;
Date of disposition;
Date of external review
(i.e., by civilian oversight board);
Disposition of external
review;
Discipline imposed;
I recognize that agencies are
under no obligation to create new records in response to a public records
request. That said, extraction of information from a database or electronic record
system does not constitute creating a new record. See 950 CMR 32.07(1)(f). See
also Attorney Gen. v. District Att'y for Plymouth Dist., 484
Mass. 260, 275 (2020) (“where public records are in electronic form, as they
increasingly are and will be, a public records request that requires a
government entity to search its electronic database to extract requested data
does not mean that the extracted data constitute the creation of a new record
under the public records law”). Furthermore, record custodians are also
required to implement new record keeping systems and databases in such a way as
to allow for “retrieval of public portions of records to provide maximum public
access.” See 950 CMR 32.07(1)(e).
If the city of Framingham
and/or the Framingham Police Department does not maintain an electronic record
system pertaining to internal affairs investigations, I would request, for the
period of 2010 to the present, the following:
Any document, ledger,
report, or list, which summarizes investigations undertaken by the
Internal Affairs Unit (however named), and which may include a unique case
identifier (case number, complaint number, special order number, etc.),
the names of the officers involved, the substance of the complaint, and
the disposition of the investigation.
With respect to the form of production, we note that
relevant regulations require the production of records in an accessible,
commonly used electronic form, to the extent feasible. See 950 CMR
32.04(5)(d). Printing these records from a database or electronic system,
redacting them with a marker, and then re-scanning them, is generally not
consistent with these regulations; this process provides the digital records in
neither the preferred form nor in a “searchable machine-readable form.” 950 CMR
32.04(5)(d). If necessary, we welcome reasonable suggested modifications
pursuant to 950 CMR 32.06(2)(g).
If you believe that some portion of the documents
requested are exempt from disclosure or require redaction, please release any
reasonably segregable portions that are not exempt. In addition, please note
the applicable statutory exemption and explain why it applies to the redacted
portions. Please also note that the legislature has recently amended the
“personal privacy exemption,” G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c) so as to specifically
make investigations into law enforcement misconduct subject to disclosure. That
exemption to disclosure now reads:
(c) personnel and medical files or information and
any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the
disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
provided, however, that this subclause shall not apply to records related to
a law enforcement misconduct investigation.
G. L.
c. 4, § 7(26)(c), emphasized language added by St. 2020, c. 253,
§ 2 (effective Dec. 31, 2020). By the plain language of this statutory
change, the dispositions of internal affairs investigations may no longer be
redacted.
Because this request involves a matter of public
concern and is made on behalf of a state agency, we ask that you waive any
fees. CPCS is an agency dedicated to the legal defense and protection of
indigent individuals across the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. If you
decide not to waive fees, we request that you provide us with both a specific
estimate of fees and permit us to examine, at our election, the responsive
documents before deciding which portions to copy. Please note that 950
CMR 32.07(2)(m) provides: “a municipal records access officer shall not assess
a fee for the first two hours of time spent searching for, compiling,
segregating, redacting and reproducing a requested record in a municipality
with a population of over 20,000.”
Thank you for your anticipated prompt attention to
these requests. We look forward to receiving a response. Feel free
to contact me if you need any clarification of the requests set forth above.
Sincerely,
Mitchell Kosht
Please see the attached file responsive to your request.
Redactions of identifying witness information were made on pages 4, 6, 8, and 9 pursuant to Exemption (f) as the disclosures "would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest."
You have the righty to appeal this response to the Supervisor of Public Records or to file an action in Superior Court pursuant to G.L. c. 66, section 10A.
Request Date
2021-07-02
Agency Tracking
2021-1166
Acquisition Notes
This record was automatically imported from https://www.townforms.com/FOIADirect-FraminghamMACitizens/