Driscoll, Sean v. Falmouth, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20140031)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams Supervisor ofR ecords March 12, 2014 SPR14/031 Mr. Julian M. Suso, Town Manager Town ofFalmouth 59 Town Hall Square Falmouth, MA 02540 Dear Mr. Suso: This office has received the petition of Sean F. Driscoll of the Cape Cod Times appealing your response for the Town of Falmouth (Town) to the December 16, 2013 request for public records made by his colleague George Brennan. See G. L. c. 66, § 1O (b ); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(6). Specifically, Mr. Brennan requested copies of records relating to the internal investigation of a specifically identified Falmouth Police Lieutenant. In a December 20, 2013 letter to Mr. Brennan, you stated that the Town was withholding responsive records pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Exemption (c) Exemption (c) applies to: personnel and medical files or information; also any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). This exemption contains two distinct and independent clauses, each requiring its own analysis. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Retirement Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 432-33 (1983). The first clause creates a categorical exemption for personnel and medical information. Wakefield Teachers Association v. School Committee ofWakefield, 431 Mass. 792, 798 (2000). The core categories of personnel information include employment applications, employee work evaluations, disciplinary documentation, and promotion, demotion, or termination information pertaining to a particular employee. Wakefield Teachers Association v. School Committee of Wakefield, 431 Mass. 792, 798 (2000). The second clause only protects intimate details of a OneAshburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 · (617) 727-2832. Fax (617) 727-5914 www.sec.state.ma. us/ pre

Mr. Julian M. Suso, Town Manager SPR14/031 Page Two March 12, 2014 highly personal nature while requiring a balancing of the public's right to know against the relevant privacy interests at stake. Att'y Gen. v. Ass't Comm'r of the Real Property Dep't of Boston, 380 Mass. 623, 625 (1980). The records of an internal affairs investigation conducted by a law enforcement body require further scrutiny beyond a simple determination as to the applicability of Exemption (c) with respect to these records. See Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corp. v. Chief of Police of Worcester, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 1 (2003). The internal affairs procedure fosters the public's trust and confidence in the integrity of the police department, its employees, and its processes for investigating complaints because the department has the integrity to discipline itself. A citizenry's full and fair assessment of a police department's internal investigation of its officers' actions promotes the core value oftrust between citizens and police essential to law enforcement and the protection of constitutional rights. Worcester at 12. In order to achieve this full and fair assessment, the court emphasized a need for disclosure of records related to an internal affairs investigation. I d. Accordingly, the records responsive to this request are presumed to be public pursuant to the Worcester opinion. 111 In your December 20 letter, you stated that the investigation related to matters which occurred while the officer was off-duty and not engaged in police business, thus not making them subject to disclosure. The Town is advised that an internal investigation into the conduct of an officer that relates to an "intramural departmental matter" or "non-police matter" does not lessen the public concern of that investigation. The competence and integrity of a police force are intrinsically public concerns. William A. Leeman v. Alan N. Cote as Supervisor of Records et al, 21 Mass.L.Rep. 411, 16 (2006). The court further stated that the Public Records Law holds "no non-police matter exemption" with respect to records relating to an internal affairs investigation. Leeman at 15. Based on my review of this matter and a reliance on the Worcester and Leeman decisions, it is my finding that records responsive to this request are public and subject to disclosure. Accordingly, the Town is hereby ordered to provide copies of responsive records to Mr. Driscoll within ten (10) calendar days in accordance with the provisions ofthe Public Records Law. This administrative appeal is closed. Supervisor of Records cc: Mr. Sean F. Driscoll