Alexander Jones v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20160939)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A Williams Supervisor ofR ecords November 3, 2016 SPR16/939 Jaclyn R. Zawada, Esq. Boston Police Department One Schroeder Place Boston, MA 02120 Dear Ms. Zawada: I have received the petition of Alexander Jones, a Law Student Intern for the Committee for Public Counsel Services, appealing the response of the City of Boston -Police Department (Department) to his request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § lO(b ); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2). Specifically, Mr. Jones requested two (2) categories ofrecords related to surveillance cameras. The Department denied this request, citing both the investigatory and public safety exemptions to the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 4, § 7 (26) (f), (n). Prior appeals This request was the subject of prior appeals. See SPR16/446, SPR16/544, SPR16/685 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 13, 2016, August 3, 2016, September 16, 2016). I closed SPR16/685 with an order to the Department to either provide a revised response or provide the documents to this office for an in camera review. In compliance with my administrative order the Department issued a written response to Mr. Jones dated October 11, 2016, reasserting the Department's exemption claims. Mr. Jones appealed. Exemption (/) In the Department's October 11 response, you explained that the Department is withholding portions of the requested records pursuant to Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. G. L. c 4 §7(26)(f). Exemption (f), the "investigatory" exemption, permits the withholding of: One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-2832• Fax: (617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre• pre@sec.state.ma.us

Jaclyn R. Zawada, Esq. SPR16/939 Page 2 November 3, 2016 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)(±) A custodian ofrecords 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. An investigative agency is not required to demonstrate prejudice to withhold the identities of voluntary witnesses, informants, or complainants. Reinstein v. Police Commissioner of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 290 n.18 (1979). Confidential investigative techniques may also be withheld indefinitely if disclosure is deemed prejudicial to future law enforcement activities. Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 62 (1976). Present appeal In your October 11 letter, you explain the responsive map would disclose "location, equipment and techniques used by law enforcement." You further explain disclosure would "undermine efforts, at future surveillance, as well as pose a risk to individuals who [conduct] surveillance and/or [permit] surveillance on their property." You further explain, "protection of such investigatory materials is essential to ensure that the Department can continue to effectively monitor and control criminal activity and thus ensure the safety of private citizens." Conclusion I find the Department has met its statutory and regulatory obligations in explaining the need to withhold the responsive record pursuant to Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. Accordingly, a review of the Department's Exemption (n) claim is not required. IfMr. Jones is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, § 1O (b) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applic ble judicial remedies). Supervisor of Records cc: Alexander Jones