Request #2021-1166 (Framingham, MA - Police)

Request for public records made to City of Framingham by Mitchell Kosht.

Agency

City of Framingham

Summary

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/

Status

Fulfilled

Requester

Mitchell Kosht

This record is part of the StateReference Public Records Requests collection. This is a public records request to a state agency or municipality.

This record was originally posted at https://www.townforms.com/FOIADirect-FraminghamMACitizens/.