NORTHAMPTON — An independent journalist is suing Northwestern District Attorney David Sullivan’s office under the state public records law for withholding names of police officers accused of crimes and other misconduct.

Andrew Quemere, author of “The Mass Dump” newsletter, filed the lawsuit Monday in Suffolk County Superior Court, which he said handles all public records disputes involving state agencies.

Speaking by phone Tuesday, Quemere said he writes primarily about police violence and misconduct.

“I do a lot of my work through public records requests,” he said. He has filed more than 460 public records appeals since 2014, according to information on the secretary of state’s website.

In January 2022, Quemere filed a request for the district attorney’s so-called Brady list and related records of police officers in Hampshire and Franklin counties who were charged with criminal offenses and other misconduct. Prosecutors are required to provide this evidence to criminal defendants, who can use it to challenge the officers’ credibility in court.

In response, the DA’s office sent Quemere a slew of letters referring to more than 30 officers, with the names blacked out, asserting they were protected by the personal privacy exemption to the public records law, the lawsuit states.

While it does not maintain a Brady list, the office said in a statement that it follows a Brady protocol in which prosecutors inform defense attorneys of any criminal wrongdoing or other alleged misconduct committed by police officers who are witnesses in pending criminal prosecutions.

Quemere argues that the Legislature in 2020 explicitly said the personal privacy exemption “shall not apply to records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation.”

The core issue in this case is what that language means, according to Quemere’s attorney, Mason Kortz.

“We think the best interpretation is the most obvious one: When a police officer is suspected of unprofessional, unethical or illegal conduct, the public has a right to know the results,” Kortz stated.

In its statement Tuesday, the DA’s office said it “routinely withholds or redacts records to guard against invasions of privacy, public embarrassment and reputational damage,” regardless of whose information is being sought. “We do not afford law enforcement officers any special privilege in this regard.”

The DA’s office stated that the combination of recent amendments to the public records statute, the creation of the Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Commission and other developments “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,” the statement reads.

Quemere said he repeatedly appealed Sullivan’s denial of his request in full to the supervisor of records in the Secretary of State’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.

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.

]]>