Robin J. Logan v. Bourne, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20180053)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division

Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records

January 24, 2018 SPR18/053

Jessie L. Hennrikus Bourne Police Department 175 Main Street

Bourne, MA 02532

Dear Ms. Hennrikus:

I have received the petition of Robin J. Logan appealing the response of the Bourne Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, Mr. Getty of Executive Cabinetry LLC requested records related to an identified incident that occurred on August 15, 2017. In a response dated August 22, 2017 the Department provided certain records with portions redacted under Exemptions (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c), (f).

Purpose of request

In the appeal petition, Ms. Logan indicates she has been retained to “look into an alleged motor vehicle accident which our insured denies any knowledge of.” Please note the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does.not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requester. See Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, the purpose in making the request has no bearing on the public status of any existing responsive records.

It should be noted that the discovery process and the Public Records Law are two distinct and independent avenues for gaining access to records. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has held that while a party’s access to records may be limited by the Public Records Law, this may not preclude obtaining the records through discovery. Commonwealth v. Wanis, 426 Mass. 639 (1998). As such, the parties may wish to consider another means of seeking to obtain any existing responsive records.

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

Jessie L. Hennrikus SPR18/053 _ Page 2 January 23, 2018

Current appeal

In her appeal petition, Ms. Logan explains “we request the release of the name and — contact information for said witness.” In its August 22”! response, the Department redacted portions of the responsive records under Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 4, §

7(26)(f). 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, 87 (26)(£).

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). 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.

The Department indicates “[t]he record(s) contained information of an investigative nature, the disclosure of which would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest.” You also note that “[t]his includes any witness statements or witness information and any cases that are in the court process.”

I find the Department has met its burden to withhold witness name and contact information pursuant to Exemption (f). See Antell v. Attorney Gen., 52 Mass. App. Ct. at 248. As such, I will not opine on the Department’s Exemption (c) claim.

Jessie L. Hennrikus SPR18/053 Page 3 January 23, 2018

Sincerely,

Rebecca S. Murray

Supervisor of Records cc: Robin J. Logan