Shane Moffat v. Executive Office of Public Safety and Security - Department of Correction (SPR 20160776)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams Supervisor ofR ecords October 13, 2016 SPR16/776 Ms. Kimberly Lincoln Susan-Baranowski Correctional Center P. 0. Box 8000 Shirley, MA 01464 Dear Ms. Lincoln: I have received the petition of Shane Moffat appealing the response of the Department of Correction (Department) to his request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § 10(b); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2). Specifically, Mr. Moffat requested copies of records related to what he calls the "Security Threat Group Derailment Program." This matter was the subject of previous appeals by Mr. Moffat. In response to the most recent order of this office the Department provided a written response to Mr. Moffat, which he now appeals. It is my understanding that the Department has provided redacted records to Mr. Moffat. Mr. Moffat objects to the redactions and what Mr. Moffat characterizes as the failure by the Department to "not only cite an exemption, but. .. also state why the exemption applies to each withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record." In its August 24letter, provided in response to my most recent order, the Department explained that "inmate names and commitment numbers" were redacted from the responsive records pursuant to both Department regulations as well as the Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) Act. 103 DOC 153(q); 105 CMR 157; G. L. c. 6, § 167-178. Exemption (a), known as the statutory exemption, permits the withholding of records that are: specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute. G. L. c. 4, §7 (26) (a) A governmental entity may use the statutory exemption as a basis for withholding requested materials where the language of the exempting statute relied upon expressly or necessarily implies that the public's right to inspect records under the Public Records Law is restricted. See Attorney General v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 54 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-46 (1977). This office cannot order OneAshburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 · (617) 727-2832 ·Fax (617) 727-5914 www.sec.state.ma. us/ pre

Ms. Kimberly Lincoln SPR16/776 Page 2 October 13, 2016 disclosure of records if a statute mandates nondisclosure. General Chemical Corp. v. Department of Environmental Quality Engineering, 19 Mass. App. Ct. 287 (Mass. App. Ct. 1985). CORI, which is statutorily exempt from disclosure, is defined as: [A]ny records and data in any communicable form compiled by a criminal justice agency which concern an identifiable individual and relate to the nature or disposition of a criminal charge, an arrest, a pre-trial proceeding, or other judicial proceedings, sentencing, incarceration, rehabilitation, or release. G. L. c. 6, § 167 The Department stated it redacted "inmate names and commitment numbers." I find the Department has met its obligations to explain what information was redacted, and provided the statutory support to explain why the information was redacted. Accordingly, I find the Department acted properly in redacting CORI from the responsive records pursuant to the applicable statute. As such, a review of the relevant DOC regulatio s is not warranted. cc: Mr. Shane Moffat