Dreslinski, Michael v. Executive Office of Public Safety and Security - Department of State Police (SPR 20150895)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams Supervisor ofR ecords December 14, 2015 SPRlS/895 Ms. Jaclyn R. Zawada, Esq. Department of State Police Office of the Chief Legal Counsel 470 Worcester Road Framingham, MA 01702 Dear Attorney Zawada: I have received the petition of Michael Dreslinski appealing the response of the Department of State Police (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 records related to motor vehicle incident which occurred on or about April25, 2007 involving him and a yellow Ford Ranger pickup truck. The Department provided him with a record with information redacted to remove dates of birth and other information that would identify "complainants, victims, witnesses, and/or informants," pursuant to the investigatory exemption to the Public Records Law, and Mr. Dreslinski appealed. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f). 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). 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

Ms. Jaclyn R. Zawada, Esq. SPR15/895 Page Two December 14, 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) The exemption is intended to allow investigative officials to provide an assurance of confidentiality to individuals so that they will speak openly about matters under investigation. Bougas v. Chief of Police, 371 Mass. 59, 62 (1976). Consequently, there is no requirement that an investigative agency demonstrate prejudice to an ongoing investigation to withhold the identities of voluntary witnesses, informants or complainants. Reinstein v. Police Comm'r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 290 n.18 (1979). Any information contained in a witness statement, which if disclosed would create a grave risk of directly or indirectly identifying the voluntary witness is subject to withholding. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Retirement Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 438 (1983). The Supreme Judicial Court has held that "the inquiry as to what constitutes identifying information regarding an individual must be considered not only from the viewpoint of the public, but also from the vantage of those who are familiar with the individual and his career." Id. at 438. I find the Department's response satisfies the burdens imposed by the Public Records Law to specifically state the application of an exemption to the withheld information. Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal 1 s cc: Mr. Michael Dreslinski