Theodore Lorenz v. Natick, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20170539)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records May 3, 2017 SPR17/539 Lt. Leo Fitzpatrick Natick Police Department Town of Natick 20 East Central Street Natick, MA 01760 Dear Lt. Fitzpatrick: I have received the petition of Theodore Lorenz appealing the response of the Town of Natick Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § 1O A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Mr. Lorenz requested records pertaining to a specifically identified incident report. Previous appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPRI 7 /189 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 10, 2017); SPRI 7 /272 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 15, 2017). In my March 15th determination I closed the appeal with the proviso that the Department provide Mr. Lorenz with a supplemental response to the request. In a response dated March 22, 201 7, the Department explains that it provided responsive records, but redacted portions under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Mr. Lorenz informed this office that he objects to this response and SPRI 7/539 was opened as a result. In Camera Inspection of Records It is the finding of this office that an in camera review of an unredacted copy of the responsive records would facilitate a determination as to the applicability of any exemption claims made by the Department. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4). After I complete my review of the documents, I will return the record to your custody and issue an opinion on the public or exempt nature of the record. 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

Lt. Leo Fitzpatrick SPRl 7/539 Page 2 May 3, 2017 The authority to require the submission of records for an in camera inspection emanates from the Code of Massachusetts Regulations. 950 C.M.R. 32.08( 4 ); see also G.L. c. 66, § 1. This office interprets the in camera inspection process to be analogous to that utilized by the judicial system. See Rock v. Massachusetts Comm'n Against Discrimination, 384 Mass. 198, 206 (1981) (administrative agency entitled deference in the interpretation of its own regulations). Records are not voluntarily submitted, but rather are submitted pursuant to an order by this office that an in camera inspection is necessary to make a proper finding. Records are submitted for the limited purpose of review. This office is not the custodian of records examined in camera, therefore, any request made to this office for records being reviewed in camera will be denied. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4)(c). This office has a long history of cooperation with governmental agencies with respect to in camera inspection. Custodians submit copies of the relevant records to this office upon a promise of confidentiality. This office does not release records reviewed in camera to anyone under any circumstances. Upon a determination of the public record status, records reviewed in camera are promptly returned to the custodian. To operate in any other fashion would seriously impede our ability to function and would certainly affect our credibility within the legal community. Accordingly, you are hereby ordered to provide this office with an umedacted copy of the responsive records without delay. The Department may provide this office with an explanation of its position regarding the applicability of an exemption to the responsive records. Please be advised that, unlike the materials provided for in camera review, any such additional correspondence would be placed in the file for this appeal and would be subject to public disclosure as a public record. Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Theodore Lorenz