Absence of a Public Record: Which statement is true?

• A. The absence can be used to prove that the record exists.
• B. The testimony or certification can prove that the record does not exist or that a matter did not occur or exist if the public office regularly kept such records.
• C. The search must reveal every possible record.
• D. The absence applies only to digital records.

Answer: (B)

The important idea here is that you can prove the nonexistence of a public record through a credible assertion from the office that regularly keeps such records. If the custodian testifies, or there is a certification from the public office, saying that no record exists or that a matter did not occur, this can be admissible to prove absence when the agency maintains records as a matter of routine. This recognizes that, in a system with regular record-keeping, an absence can be meaningful evidence of nonexistence.

Why this option fits best: it captures the exact mechanism allowed by the rule—a testimony or certification from the custodian that the record does not exist or the matter did not occur, provided the office routinely keeps records. The other statements don’t fit because: stating that absence proves existence is wrong, requiring a search to reveal every possible record is unnecessarily strict, and limiting the rule to digital records ignores the broader principle that absence of a public record can be probative for either paper or digital records when regular records are kept.