Thomas Greve v. Massachusetts State Police (SPR 20170350)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records March 29, 2017 SPR17/350 Siobhan E. Kelly, Esq. Staff Attorney Massachusetts State Police General Headquarters 470 Worcester Road Framingham, MA 01702 Dear Attorney Kelly: I have received the petition of Thomas Greve appealing the response of the Massachusetts Department of State Police (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § lOA; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1 ). Specifically, Mr. Greve requested "copies of any records indicating the type of genetic testing performed" in reference to a specific case. After receiving a response from the Department in which it indicated it is withholding all records under Exemption (f), Mr. Greve petitioned this office and this appeal was opened as a result. Exemption (I) In its initial response dated December 29, 2016, the Department indicated its intent to withhold the requested documents under Exemption (f). 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

Siobhan Kelly, Esq. SPRl 7/350 Page 2 March 29, 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 Commissioner of Boston, 378 Mass. 281,290 n.18 (1979). Conclusion I find that in its application of Exemption (f), the Department failed to explain with specificity exactly how Exemption (f) applies in this situation. Subsequent to the intervention by a staff member of the Public Records Division, I learned that the Department intends to issue a supplemental response in which it provides further detail about the application of Exemption (f). Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed with the proviso that the Department provides said response 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 to this office at: pre@sec.state.ma.us. Mr. Greve may appeal the substantive nature of the Department's response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, ~UIT~ Supervisor of Records cc: Thomas Greve