Andrew McIsaac v. Weymouth, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20170382)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records April 7, 2017 SPR17/382 Captain Joseph Comperchio Captain of Administrative Services Weymouth Police Department 140 Winter Street Weymouth, MA 02188 Dear Captain Comperchio: I have received the petition of Andrew Mclsaac appealing the response of the Weymouth Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § lOA; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, Mr. Mclsaac requested a copy of the "policies & procedures of the Weymouth Police." This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR 17 /255 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 27, 2017); SPR 17 /267 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 9, 2017). SPR 17/267 was closed as the Department had provided redacted copies of the requested policies in a response dated March 7, 2017. Mr. Mclsaac appealed the redaction of the "Authorized Weapons (Equipment), Policy #1-7" and this appeal (SPR 17/382) was opened as a result. The Department's response In the Department's March J1h response, you explain that the "Authorized Weapons (Equipment), Policy #1-7" has been redacted pursuant to Exemption (b) and Exemption (n) of the Public Records Law. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § lOA(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(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). 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

Captain Joseph Comperchio SPRl 7/382 Page 2 April 7, 2017 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, § lO(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) ( custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. Exemption (b) The Department indicated the policy in question has been redacted pursuant to Exemption (b) of the Public Records Law. Exemption (b) permits the withholding of records that are: related solely to internal personnel rules and practices of the government unit, provided however, that such records shall be withheld only to the extent that proper performance of necessary governmental functions requires such withholding G. L. c. 4, §7 (26)(b). For Exemption (b) to apply in Massachusetts, a records custodian must demonstrate not only that the records relate solely to the internal personnel practices of the government entity, but also that proper performance of necessary government functions will be inhibited by disclosure. In its response the Department explains that the information redacted included "the description of all the weapons and ammunition used by the department" and the disclosure of such poses a "security risk to all officers of the department." However, it is unclear how "proper performance of necessary governmental functions requires" the withholding of this information. I find the Department lias not met its burden to justify the redactions under Exemption (b ). Exemption (n) The Department also indicated the policy in question has been redacted pursuant to Exemption (n) of the Public Records Law. Exemption (n) permits the withholding of: records, including, but not limited to, blueprints, plans, policies, procedures and schematic drawings, which relate to internal layout and structural elements, security measures, emergency preparedness, threat or vulnerability assessments, or any other records relating to the security or safety of persons or buildings, structures, facilities, utilities, transportation, cyber security or other infrastructure located within the commonwealth, the disclosure of which, in the reasonable judgment of the record custodian, subject to review by the supervisor of public records under subsection ( c) of section 10 of chapter 66, is likely to jeopardize public safety or cyber security.

Captain Joseph Comperchio SPR17/382 Page 3 April 7, 2017 G. L. c. 4, §7 (26)(n). Exemption (n) allows for the withholding of certain records which if released would jeopardize public safety. It is the duty of the custodian ofrecords to exercise reasonable judgment to determine whether release of the record is likely to jeopardize public safety. Given the unique statutory construction of Exemption (n), records released to a particular individual through this exemption need not be released to all subsequent requestors. ih In its March response, the Department explained that the redacted portions of the policy included "the description of all the weapons and ammunition used by the department" and that disclosure of this information "poses a security risk to all officers of the department. However, it is unclear how disclosure "is likely to jeopardize public safety" and "all officers of the department." I find the Department has not met its burden to justify the redactions under Exemption (n). I understand a member of my staff contacted you regarding this matter. Conclusion I find that the Department must provide a supplemental response further explaining the Exemption (n) claim to justify the redaction of the policy. I will consider this administrative appeal closed with the proviso that this response is provided to Mr. Mcisaac within ten (10) business days. A copy of this response must also 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. Mr. Mcisaac may appeal the substantive nature of this response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2). Sincerely, Jc.,WUA~~ Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Andrew Mclsaac