Chris Infami v. Marshfield, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20180009)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor ofR ecords January 5, 2018 SPRlS/009 Phillip A. Tavares Chief of Police Marshfield Police Department 870 Moraine Street Marshfield, MA 02050 Dear Chief Tavares: I have received the petition of C. Informi appealing the response. of the Marshfield 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, C. Informi requested all arrest reports related to an identified docket number. Unsatisfied with the Department's response, in which they indicated their intention to withhold the records under Exemption (f), C. Informi 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, § 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). 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. January 2nd response In their January 2nd 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

Chief Tavares SPR18/009 Page 2 January 5, 2018 Exemption (I) 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, 3 71 Mass 59, 62 (1976). Redactions may be appropriate where they serve to preserve the anonymity of voluntary witnesses. Antell v. Attorney Gen., 52 Mass. App. Ct. 244,248 (2001); Reinstein v. Police Comm'r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281,290 n.18 (1979). Exemption (f) invites a "case-by case consideration" of whether disclosure "would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest." See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90. In their citation of Exemption (f), the Department has not met its burden of specificity in claiming an exemption under the Public Records Law to withhold the records in their entirety. The January 2nd response is simply a declaration of intention to utilize Exemption (f) to withhold records rather than a specific claim of an exemption's applicability, as required by law. G. L. c. 66, § 1O (b )(iv) (requiring that when withholding records an RAO must provide the specific reasons for such withholding). Conclusion Given that the Department did not overcome the presumption that the requested records are public by not meeting its statutory burden to provide the specific reasons for withholding the records, accordingly, the Department is hereby ordered to provide responsive records in a manner consistent with the Public Records Law, its Access Regulations and this order within ten business days. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of this response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. C. Informi may appeal the substantive nature of the Department's response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). The Department may file a request for reconsideration of this determination within ten business days of the date of this determination letter.

Chief Tavares SPR18/009 Page 3 January 5, 2018 Sincerely, ~~ Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: C. Informi