Alexander Nova v. Walpole, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20171083)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S: Murray Supervisor ofR ecords August 14, 2017 SPR17/1083 Judy Ryan-Decker Administrative Assistant Walpole Police Department Walpole, MA 02081 Dear Ms. Ryan-Decker: I have received the petition of Alexander Nova appealing the response of the Walpole Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 1O A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, Mr. Nova requested records of an incident that occurred on August 4, 2017. Unsatisfied with the Department's response, in which they indicated their intention to withhold the records under Exemption (f), Mr. Nova petitioned this office and this appeal was opened as a result. 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, § 10A(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). 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, § 10(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. August Ifh response In their August 11th response, the Department noted their intention to withhold the requested documents under Exemption (f). 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

Judy Ryan-Decker SPR17/1083 Page2 August 14, 2017 Exemption (f) The Department contends that the requested record may be withheld under Exemption (f). Exemption (f) applies to: 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 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.l8 (1979). The Department indicates that the requested records "are exempt or redacted from public disclosure" by Exemption (f). However, the Department has not met its burden of specificity in claiming Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold the records in their entirety. The August 11th response is simply a declaration of intention to utilize Exemption (f) to withhold records rather than explaining its applicability. Conclusion Subsequent to the intervention by a staff member of the Public Records Division, I learned that a representative from the Department intends on providing a supplemental response to Mr. Nova. 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. Mr. Nova may appeal the substantive nature of the Department's response within ninety days. See C.M.R. 32.08(1). ~~ Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Alexander Nova