I guess that’s how we’re doing this
I guess that’s how we’re doing this
The latest on the public records lawsuit against Northwestern District Attorney David Sullivan’s office
Last Monday, WWLP reported this interesting news item:
The Northwestern District Attorney’s office is on the receiving end of a lawsuit that alleges they violated state public records law by redacting the names of police officers accused of crimes or other misconduct.
The lawsuit centers around a records request by an independent journalist, that the office responded to with a redacted list of disclosures detailing police officers with misconduct allegations. However, the names of those police officers were blacked out.
Who is this mysterious independent journalist?? They would have to be an extremely rad individual to bring a totally righteous lawsuit like this, but the story doesn’t say who they are! Maybe their name was blacked out too!
lol jk it’s me
As I reported last week, I’m suing Northwestern District Attorney David Sullivan’s office for withholding the names of police officers accused of crimes and other misconduct. I wanted to thank all the reporters who covered this news (except for the weirdos at WWLP) and share some excerpts from their coverage.
Neal McNamara of The Patch did a good job of explaining why the DA’s argument for keeping the names secret makes no sense:
The DA’s office cited a privacy exemption under the public records law in withholding the names.
The state Legislature in 2020 updated the public records law privacy exemption to say it “shall not apply to records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation.” But the DA’s office said the language was “very vague,” and sought guidance from the Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Commission about how it applies to public records requests. The POST Commission does not oversee the state public records law.
The DA’s office said it withheld the court docket numbers per the state’s Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) law. State courts have previously ruled that criminal records of public officials, including police officers, can be disclosed under the public records law.
McNamara quoted me here:
Quemere said the lawsuit is the result of a broken public records system in Massachusetts, where state records officials don’t have the power to hold government officials who refuse to turn over records accountable. Public records lawsuits consume taxpayer resources, and are unnecessarily burdensome for members of the public seeking records about government operations, he said.
“We deserve a criminal justice system that is based on integrity and aims for actual justice,” he said. “We deserve to know whether those ideals are being upheld by prosecutors.”
Dusty Christensen of The Shoestring also interviewed me:
In an interview with The Shoestring, Quemere accused Sullivan’s office of making “absurd” legal arguments for redacting the names of police officers from its Brady disclosure letters, as well as court-case numbers of those officers who faced legal charges.
But the bigger underlying issue, Quemere said, is the complete lack of power given to the state official in charge of enforcing the state’s public-records law. Agencies will withhold public information because they know that the state’s supervisor of records has no ability to enforce her decisions herself, he said.
“They know that if they deny public records, all you can do is sue,” he said. “There just aren’t enough attorneys out here to do this work.”
So did James Pentland of The Daily Hampshire Gazette:
Quemere said he repeatedly appealed Sullivan’s denial of his request in full to the supervisor of records in the secretary of the commonwealth’s office.
“She ruled in my favor three times,” he said.
Quemere, of Framingham, said the issue of police misconduct has been litigated time after time. A judge recently found the city of Worcester had acted in bad faith when it withheld records from the Telegram & Gazette newspaper and had cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars, he said. [Read more about the Worcester lawsuit here.]
Unfortunately, he said, enforcement of public records law in Massachusetts is weak and agencies are willing to take the risk of flouting it.
Quemere said his hope is that the judge will decide his case on summary judgment.
“We believe the law is very clearly in our favor,” he said.
And so did Stephanie Barry of The Republican/MassLive.com:
Quemere calls himself a “police abolitionist” who uses public records to investigate police violence and misconduct in Massachusetts. He has filed more than 460 public records appeals since 2014, according to data on the Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth’s website.
During an interview Monday, Quermere said filing public records requests is “empowering” because any average citizen can do it and become more engaged in government.
The DA’s office sent The Daily Hampshire Gazette the following statement on Tuesday:
The Northwestern District Attorney’s Office takes seriously its legal and ethical responsibilities to provide criminal defendants with information that may be favorable to their defense. Toward that end, the Office has developed a Brady protocol in which prosecutors inform defense attorneys of any criminal wrongdoing or other alleged misconduct committed by law enforcement officers who are witnesses in pending criminal prosecutions. This ensures that defendants’ rights are protected and justice is served in every case.
However, the Office equally believes that law enforcement officers do not forfeit their right to privacy by virtue of their profession. Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) and internal personnel files contain highly sensitive and confidential information that is not appropriate for public dissemination. Regardless of whose information is being sought, our Office routinely withholds or redacts records to guard against invasions of privacy, public embarrassment and reputational damage. We do not afford law enforcement officers any special privilege in this regard.
In our view, the combination of recent amendments to the public records statute, the creation of the Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Commission, and developments in appellate caselaw have created much uncertainty about the current state of public records law in Massachusetts. We would welcome guidance from the Attorney General’s Office, the Legislature, and/or the Judiciary regarding whether our interpretation of the public records statute is correct. Beyond that, we cannot comment on the specifics of any pending litigation.
The claim by Sullivan’s office that it is not providing special treatment to police officers is demonstrably false and disingenuous. The DA’s office publishes press releases with the names of people charged with crimes right on its website for anyone to see.
For example, here is a recent press release about a man the DA’s office charged with making threats against a school. The press release includes the man’s name, age, and even the street where he lives. You can read another press release about a man who was convicted of indecent assault on a child here. It includes the man’s name and age.
If there truly is “much uncertainty about the current state of public records law in Massachusetts,” it hasn’t stopped the DA’s office from releasing the names of people who aren’t police officers. The DA’s office wants people to believe that the names of people charged with crimes must be kept secret except when it doesn’t want them to be, which is just not how the public records law works.
Last Monday, I reached out to Laurie Loisel, the communications director for the DA’s office, to ask for a statement about my lawsuit.
First Assistant District Attorney Steven Gagne sent my attorney, Mason Kortz, an email saying that it would not be “appropriate” for the DA’s office to respond to me directly since I am represented by legal counsel.
“Please advise him that any future correspondence should take place through you,” Gagne told Kortz.
To be clear, I did not contact an attorney who is defending the DA’s office against my lawsuit. I contacted the communications director for the DA’s office, the person designated to answer inquiries from the media. Her responding to me would not violate any ethical rule. Nevertheless, Kortz asked on my behalf whether the DA’s office had any comment.
On Thursday, two days after the DA’s office had already provided a statement to the Daily Hampshire Gazette, Gagne responded: “We do not have any comment for your client.”
Well then, I guess that’s how we’re doing this.
Holding law-breaking government officials accountable is a time-consuming business! If you’d like to keep The Mass Dump running, please consider offering your financial support, either by signing up for a paid subscription to this newsletter or sending a tip via PayPal.
If you have any story ideas, let me know about them! You can email me at aquemere0@gmail.com. Please follow me on Facebook, Twitter, and Mastodon.
Make sure you check out Bill Shaner’s must-read piece about the Worcester Police Department’s egregious acts of violence during a 2020 Black Lives Matter protest that led to a recent class-action lawsuit.
Also, happy Juneteenth!
That’s all for now, folks.