Winstanley, Robert v. Northampton, City of - Police Department (SPR 20140474)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams Supervisor ofR ecords October 27, 2014 SPR14/474 Mr. Russell P. Sienkiewicz Chief of Police Northampton Police Department 29 Center Street Northampton, MA 01060 Dear Chief Sienkiewicz: I have received the petition of Robert T. Winstanley ofRTW Investigations appealing the August 15, 2014 response of Jane Lawnicki, Supervisor of Police Records for the Northampton Police Department (Department) to Mr. Winstanley's July 2014 request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § 1O (b ); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2). Specifically, Winstanley requested the voluntary witness statements provided to the Department related to an automobile and bicycle accident that occurred on July 10,2014. Prior to this office opening an appeal on this matter, Mr. Winstanley was provided with an un-redacted copy of the Motor Vehicle Crash Police Report from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Motor Vehicles. Mr. Winstanley received the identities of the voluntary witnesses from the DMV's Crash Report, and then requested the witness statements in the custody of the Department. Mr. Winstanley requested the witness statements from the Department, providing Ms. Lawnicki with the full names of the witnesses. The Department informed Mr. Winstanley that the witness statements are withheld pursuant to Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. Status of the Requester Mr. Winstanley informed this office that he is a private investigator hired to look into the insurance claim for bodily injury and property damage regarding this matter. He believes that he should receive the records due to his status as a private investigator. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requesters. The right of requesters to inspect and obtain copies of public records is a clear statutory mandate. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (any person may receive or inspect a copy of a public record). see also Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. OneAshburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 · (617) 727-2832 ·Fax (617) 727-5914 www.sec.state.ma. us/pre

Chief Russell P. Sienkiewicz SPR14/474 Page Two October 27, 2014 59, 64 (1976) (the public records statute does not provide a "standing requirement" but extends the right to examine to "any person" whether intimately involved with the subject matter of the records he seeks or merely motivated by idle curiosity." It may be more appropriate for Mr. Winstanley to seek a court order to obtain the witness statements. The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4). "Public records" is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any town of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10 (c ); see also District Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). In Camera Review ofR ecords In response to an order from this office, the Department provided a copy of the records regarding the vehicle and bicycle accident for an in camera review of the witness statements. I have completed my in camera inspection of the records, which was undertaken pursuant to 950 C.M.R. 32.08(6) to determine the public record status ofthe submitted records. Your cooperation in providing me with a copy of the records is appreciated. The records will be returned to the Department under separate cover. Exemption (f) Ms. Lawnicki, the Supervisor of Police Records for the Department explained to Mr. Winstanley that the disclosure of witness information would be contrary to public interest. She posits that without an assurance of confidentiality of witness information, individuals will be discouraged from coming forth and speaking openly with law enforcement officials. As a result, the disclosure would hinder law enforcement efforts in the future. The Department withheld the witness statements in their entirety pursuant to Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. Exemption (f) permits the withholding of: investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of the public view by law enforcement or other investigatory officials the disclosure of which materials would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest G. L. c. 4, § 7 (26)(f)

Chief Russell P. Sienkiewicz SPR14/474 Page Four October 27, 2014 being able to glean, from all the information read together, which witness wrote and signed which statement. Whereas, the Department cannot release the responsive witness statement even in a redacted format, the Department has properly withheld the witness statements in their entirety pursuant to Exemption (f). Accordingly, this appeal is closed. In the event a request for reconsideration is honored by this office an acknowledgment will be provided to all parties, followed by a written determination by this office, to be provided within fifteen (15) business days. Requests for reconsideration filed more than thirty (30) days after the date of this letter will not be considered. cc: Mr. Robert T. Winstanley