Worcester telegram gazette1/28/2024 The plaintiff also filed in the Superior Court a motion to permit inspection of the public records sought, subject to a protective order. The plaintiff sought to compel the defendants to release the following documents: (1) all complaints against the police department arising out of Wilder's detention and arrest (2) all police officer, witness, and informant statements relating to such complaints (3) all internal investigation reports relating to suchĬomplaints (4) all investigatory findings relating to such complaints and (5) all documents relating to the disposition of such complaints. On May 10, 2000, the plaintiff filed in the Superior Court a complaint in the nature of a mandamus action pursuant to G. The defendants refused to comply with the plaintiff's request and the supervisor's order. The supervisor ordered the defendants to release the requested records to the plaintiff, redacting only the names and identifying details of voluntary witnesses, complainants, and informants. The plaintiff then petitioned the supervisor of public records (supervisor), appealingįrom the defendants' refusal to comply with its public records request. 66, § 10 (a), the plaintiff requested that the defendants release "copies of Worcester Police Department records on the internal investigation into the complaints lodged by Shawn Wilder or on his behalf, stemming from an incident May 1, 1999." The defendants responded that the records sought by the plaintiff were specifically exempt from public disclosure pursuant to one or more of the exceptions set forth in G. The Worcester police department claimed to have conducted an internal affairs investigation of the allegations and found no cause to discipline Patrolman Tarckini. Tarckini when, without cause or explanation, he detained and arrested Wilder at gunpoint. Shawn Wilder filed a complaint alleging misconduct by Patrolman Michael A. 66, § 10, for inspection by their respective counsel, subject to a protective order. We are asked in this case to review an order of a Superior Court judge that compels the defendants, the chief of police of Worcester and the city of Worcester, to produce certain documents requested by the plaintiff, Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corporation, pursuant to G. Moore, City Solicitor, for the defendants. The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court.ĭavid M. ĬIVIL ACTION commenced in the Superior Court Department on May 10, 2000.Ī motion to permit inspection of public records pursuant to a protective order was heard by James P. Review of "public records" to determine whether they are, in fact, exempt from disclosure pursuant to G. ĭiscussion of several mechanisms sanctioned by this court for the 10, to a newspaper's legal counsel of copies of police department records on the internal investigation into complaints lodged by an individual who had alleged police misconduct, where the disclosure, which was subject to a detailed protective order, tested the department's claim that the requested documents were exempt from public disclosure as "personnel files" in accordance with G. Police, Records.Ī Superior Court judge did not, in the circumstances, abuse hisĭiscretion in allowing limited disclosure, pursuant to G. Municipal Corporations, Public record, Police. 378 JanuMaWorcester County Present: MARSHALL, C.J., GREANEY, IRELAND, SPINA, COWIN, SOSMAN, & CORDY, JJ. WORCESTER TELEGRAM & GAZETTE CORPORATION vs.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |