Amy Grandone v. Office of the District Attorney - Worcester District (SPR 20170214)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records March 7, 2017 SPR17/214 Lindsay Corcoran Public Records Officer Office of the District Attorney - Worcester County 225 Main St., G301 Worcester, MA 01608 Dear Ms. Corcoran: I have received the petition of Amy Grandone appealing the response of the Office of the District Attorney-Worcester County (DAO) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § lOA; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, Ms.· Grandone requested "transcripts/ interview notes from two interrogations" relating to the homicide file of a specifically identified murder investigation. Current appeal In a response dated February 3, 2017 the DAO cited Exemption (f) to withhold responsive records. Exemption (j) Exemption (f) 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 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 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

Lindsay Corcoran SPRl 7/214 Page2 March 7, 2017 Mass 59, 62 (1976). An investigative agency is not required to demonstrate prejudice to withhold the identities of voluntary witnesses, informants, or complainants. Reinstein v. Police Comm'r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281,290 n.18 (1979). In its February 3rd response the DAO states "[t]his case remains open and active. Therefore the transcripts from the file are exempt from disclosure as 'investigatory materials' under the public record law." While the DAO claims the responsive record pertains to an ongoing investigation, it does not demonstrate how the requested records are part of the investigation, nor how disclosure "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). See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90 (explaining that Exemption (f) "invites case-by-case consideration of whether access 'would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest .... '"). As a result, it is unclear how the responsive records, in their entirety, are exempt from disclosure. See id. at 289-90 (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, § 10( a). I understand a Public Records Division staff attorney contacted you about this matter. Conclusion Accordingly, the DAO is hereby ordered to provide Ms. Grandone with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) business days. 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. Sincerely, /~~ Rebecca S. Murray · Supervisor of Records cc: Amy Grandone