Drange, Matthew v. Fall River Police Department (SPR 20150585)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams Supervisor ofR ecords October 7, 2015 SPR15/585 Lieutenant Ronald Furtado Fall River Police Department 685 Pleasant Street Fall River, MA 02721 Dear Lieutenant Furtado: I have received the petition of Matthew Drange, of The Center for Investigative Reporting, appealing the response of the Fall River Police Department (Department) to his request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § 1 O(b ); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2). Specifically, Mr. Drange requested electronic records of all incidents of possible gunshots recorded by ShotS potter Flex sensors for a specific period of time. In response you provided "a list of all Shotspotter activations by type and rounds from 2013 to Present." You denied the portion of Mr. Drange' s request related to records that would disclose the date, time and location of incidents "recorded by ShotS potter Flex sensors," claiming that the withheld portions of responsive records were exempt pursuant to the inivestigatory and public safety exemptions of the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 4, § 7 (26) (f), (n). 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, § lO(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). OneAshburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 · (617) 727-2832 ·Fax (617) 727-5914 www.sec.state.ma. us/pre

Lieutenant Ronald Furtado SPR15/585 Page Two October 7, 2015 Exemptions(/) and (n) act in the aggregate to merit nondisclosure In your July 29, 2015 response you explained "that to disclose Date and Time, Location (Latitude and Longitude) and Beats, of all [ShotSpotter] activations could potentially jeopardize public safety." (Emphasis omitted). You further explained that"[ s] hould the requested information of the [ShotS potter] be made public, areas of the City of Fall River that may not be covered by the technology could be known and be rendered vulnerable by a potential criminal element. Further, exact location of the [ShotS potter] equipment could render it vulnerable to potential destruction by the same elements." Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law applies to permit withholding of records "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). Exemption (n) of the Public Records Law applies to, among other things, "records relating to the security or safety of persons or buildings, structures, facilities, utilities, transportation or other infrastructure located within the commonwealth, the disclosure of which, in the reasonable judgment of the record custodian, subject to review by the supervisor of public records under subsection (b) of section 10 of chapter 66, is likely to jeopardize public safety." Subsequent to the opening of this appeal you sent a letter to this office, received on July 23, 2015. In that letter you restated your concerns with respect to the ShotS potter records, further clarifying your response. You explained that the ShotS potter Sensors do not cover the entire City. You explained that disclosure of the specific areas covered and not covered "could render those areas [that are not covered by ShotSpotter] more vulnerable to criminal activity." Conclusion In his petition to this office Mr. Drange stated that he had "received identical information from 27 other local municipalities around the country (including the Virgin Islands) that had contracts with the company." Disclosure in response to a request made to another custodian does not alone suffice to mandate disclosure. I find the City has met its burden of specificity by explaining the concerns for public safety associated with disclosure of location records for the ShotSpotter service. Accordingly, I find the City properly exercised its discretion in withholding portions of the responsive records pursuant to Exemptions (f) a (n) of the Public Records Law. Supervisor of Records cc: Mr. Matthew Drange