Dreslinski, Michael v. Sterling, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20150283)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams Supervisor ofR ecords July 2, 2015 SPRlS/283 Chief Gary M. Chamberland Town of Sterling-Police Department 13 5 Leominster Road Sterling, MA 01564 Dear Chief Chamberland: I have received the petition of Michael Dreslinski appealing the response of the Town of Sterling- Police Department (Department) to his request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § 1O (b ); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2). Specifically, Mr. Dreslinski requested copies of records related to four specifically identified incidents. In your response dated January 16,2015, you partially denied his request, claiming that portions of the responsive records may be withheld under Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(±). 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 Dist. Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). The Public Records Law states that "the burden shall be upon the custodian to prove with specificity the exemption which applies." G. L. c. 66, § 10(c) (emphasis added); see also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm'r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511. Exemption (f) Exemption (f), the "investigatory" exemption, 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 OneAshburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 · (617) 727-2832 ·Fax (617) 727-5914 www.sec.state.ma. us/pre

Chief Gary M. Chamberland SPR15/283 Page Two July 2, 2015 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) A custodian of records generally must demonstrate a prejudice to investigative efforts in order to withhold requested records. Information relating to an ongoing investigation may be withheld if disclosure could alert suspects to the activities of investigative officials. Confidential investigative techniques may also be withheld indefinitely if disclosure is deemed to be prejudicial to future law enforcement activities. Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass 59, 62 (1976). An investigative agency is not required to demonstrate prejudice to withhold the identities ofvoluntary witnesses, informants, or complainants. Reinstein v. Police Commissioner ofBoston, 378 Mass. 281,290 n.18 (1979). In your response dated January 16, 2015, you provided a responsive record related to one specifically identified incident. You also stated that there are no responsive records related to a second incident. With regard to the incidents that took place on April 16, 2007 and May 2 9, 2007 you state "[b] oth of those cases are open investigations and are not being released under exception (f) ...." The Department's response did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. While the Department claims the responsive records pertain to an ongoing investigation, it does not explain the subject of the investigation nor does it describe how the requested records are part of the investigation. Further, the Department did not demonstrate how disclosure of the responsive records "would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest" as required to withhold records under Exemption (f). As a result, the Department failed to meet its burden of explaining with specificity how records related to the incidents that took place on April 16, 2007 and May 29, 2007, in their entirety, are exempt from disclosure. See Reinstein v. Police Comm'r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § lO(a). Accordingly, whereas the Department has not overcome the presumption that the requested records are public, the Department is hereby ordered, within ten (10) days of this order, to provide Mr. Dreslinski with the requested records related to the incidents that took place on April 16, 2007 and May 29, 2007. If the Department maintains that any portion of these responsive records are exempt from disclosure it must, within ten (1 0) days provide to Mr. Dreslinski a written explanation, with specificity, how a particular exemption applies to each record. To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive

Chief Gary M. Chamberland SPR15/283 Page Three July 2, 2015 record. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of this response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. 11' Superv sor of Records cc: Mr. Michael Dreslinski