Northwestern DA maintains stance against police misconduct record release

---

A public records lawsuit against Northwestern District Attorney David Sullivan’s office inched forward with a hearing before the Suffolk County Superior Court last week.

Independent journalist Andrew Quemere filed suit against the district attorney — the “top cop” for Hampshire and Franklin counties — in 2023 after the office declined to release its list of local police officers known to have credibility issues. District attorneys are required by law to keep these lists, known as Brady lists after a landmark Supreme Court case, in order to turn over potentially exculpatory evidence to criminal defendants.

“This case is about whether the public has the right to know about alleged criminal misconduct by police officers,” Quemere told The Shoestring after Wednesday’s hearing. “I believe the public should have a right to know.”

Since Quemere filed his lawsuit, Sullivan has released some of his office’s Brady disclosures to the public, but those disclosures only related to civil misconduct. The DA’s legal argument now rests on an interpretation of Criminal Offender Record Information law, or CORI, which seeks to prevent the release of criminal records to unauthorized parties.

“The Northwestern District is not willy nilly saying, ‘We want to protect police officers,'” Pat Hanley, the lawyer representing the DA’s office, argued on Wednesday. “What they’re doing is only protecting what constitutes CORI.”

After the state supervisor of records ruled three times in Quemere’s favor, Sullivan’s office sought guidance from the attorney general as to whether the release of the records would qualify as a CORI violation, but received none, according to court filings.

Sullivan’s office declined an interview request for this article, stating they do not comment on pending litigation.

Quemere’s attorney, Mason Kortz of Harvard Law School’s Cyberlaw Clinic, offered a much narrower reading of CORI and relevant case law to the court. He argued that even if a court later found that the Brady disclosures would qualify as CORI-protected information, the DA’s office would likely be shielded from any legal liability for releasing that information.

(Disclosure: Kortz has also advised The Shoestring on a public records case).

“There is a carve-out for good-faith disclosures that are made during pursuance of an agency’s official duties,” Kortz told Judge Julie Green. “We read responding to records requests as part of official duties.”

Quemere also said he did not buy the DA’s argument.

“One of the ironies of this case is that the DA’s office has already released records of officers accused of administrative misconduct,” he said. “You would think that criminal cases are more serious. Here, they’re saying the public has the right to the less serious cases.”

---

The Shoestring is powered by donations from readers like you, and now through the end of the year, those donations are matched. Can you make a tax-deductible gift today?

---

Quemere pointed out that on the Northwestern District Attorney’s Office’s website, news bulletins about cases the office is prosecuting include “the very types of information they’re saying we shouldn’t have access to.”

“For them to say it’s not about protecting police officers when they’re happy to release that information about other people, and they don’t even have to be asked to do it — it’s hard to take that seriously,” Quemere said.

The issue of good faith arose several times during Wednesday’s hearing. If the court found the DA’s office operated in bad faith in denying Quemere’s public records request, they would be liable for damages paid to a public records assistance fund and attorney’s fees to Quemere. That’s in addition to the more than $10,000 the DA’s office has already paid to private counsel for this case, according to records Quemere shared with The Shoestring.

Quemere’s case isn’t the first time the Northwestern DA has argued against the obligation to produce records.

In a 2023 case involving the Bristol County district attorney, Sullivan’s office filed an amicus brief that argued that the creation of the state’s Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission in 2020 — an agency created in the wake of that year’s racial justice uprisings — meant that only that body was authorized to release records of police misconduct. The state’s top court rejected the prosecutors’ logic, however.

For now, all parties are waiting to see whether the court will determine they have enough information to make a ruling without going to trial — a process called summary judgement. Even then, the losing party could appeal the case to a higher court.

To Quemere, the whole case reeks of the problems with Massachusetts’ public records laws.

“One of major reforms the law needs is that the supervisor of records needs to be able to go to court,” Quemere told The Shoestring.

As the law stands, the state’s supervisor of records does not have any enforcement powers when someone breaks the public records law. Someone who feels a public agency unfairly denied their public records request can file a lawsuit over the matter, like Quemere. But Quemere said that it’s rare for a requestor to have the time and resources to file a lawsuit over an agency’s refusal to comply with an order from the supervisor. Giving the supervisor’s office teeth, he argued, would serve as deterrence for agencies that would rather keep their records from the public.

“The supervisor has a whole staff of attorneys who are experts in public records law,” Quemere said. “If anybody’s going to be enforcing this in court, it should be these people.”