Janet H. Pumphrey v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20180616)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records May 17,2018 SPR181616 Shawn A. Williams, Esq. Director of Public Records City of Boston - Police Department One Schroeder Plaza Boston, MA 02120 Dear Attorney Williams: I have received the petition of Janet Pumphrey, Esq. appealing the response of the City of Boston Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, 3 10A; see 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, on September 22,2017, Attorney Pumphrey requested a "copy of the complete records of the anonymous tips hotline regarding homicides in Boston - including names and descriptions of all reported suspects of murder cases - that were reported to the hotline from July 4,2007 to September 30,2007." Previous appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. SPRl711579 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 17,2017 ); SPR181156 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 15,2018 ). In my February 15 thd etermination, finding that the Department has not met its burden to withhold responsive records under Exemptions (c), (f), and (n) of the Public Records Law, I ordered the Department to provide an unredacted copy of a representative sample of the responsive records for in camera inspection. Following the February 15 thd etermination, the Department provided a supplemental response dated April 10,2018 , in lieu of providing the records for in camera review. In this response, the Department asserts that its previous Exemptions (c), (f) and (n) claims still apply to withhold responsive records and provides further explanation to support its position. G. L. c. 4, 5 7(26)(c), (f), (n). Unsatisfied with the Department's response, Attorney Pumphrey petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR181616, was opened as a result. 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

Shawn A. Williams, Esq. Page 2 May 17,2018 Tlze 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, 5 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, 5 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, 5 lO(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 51 1 (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. If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, 5 lO(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. Tlze Department's April 10'" response In its April lothr esponse, the Department indicates that upon receipt of an anonymous tip, it is referred to the Crime Stoppers Unit (Unit), where a staff member inputs the data into a computer system. The Department indicates that the information, which may include dates, times, locations, and names of persons involved in a crime the tipster identifies, is then provided to detectives who determine the next steps. The Department asserts that only two staff members in the Unit have access to this data. With respect to whether segregable portions can be provided, the Department asserts that "disclosure of any portion of the tip report risks identification of the voluntary witnesses who provided the tip information." The Department also asserts that "disclosure of any portion . . . would have a dramatic chilling effect on the entire Crime Stopper Program [(Program)]," because a brochure describing the Program assures tipsters that their tips would be ". . . 100% anonymous." The Department contends that ". . .no part of the tip report has ever been disclosed to anyone outside the [Unit] during the life of the program . . . [or] . . . any court at any time for any purpose." It is for these reasons that the Department claims the tip reports must be withheld in their entirety. Further, the Department contends that reviewing records would amount to research. The Department claims that Attorney Pumphrey requested reports "regarding homicides." As such, the Department asserts that "any review of the records would require [its] staff to conduct research to determine which of the tip reports from the requested records contain information 'regarding homicides."' The Department contends that research is not required by the Public Records Law.

Shawn A. Williams, Esq. Page 3 May 17,2018 oth Despite the Department's April 1 supplemental response, I find that the Department has not met its burden to withhold responsive records in their entirety under Exemptions (c), (f), and (n) of the Public Records Law. See SPR181156 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 15,2018 ). Further, the Department asserts that reviewing the records to determine which reports contain information "regarding homicides" would require the Department to conduct research. Pursuant to the Public Records Law, search time is defined as "[tlhe time needed to locate and identify, pull from the files, copy and reshelve or refile a public record." 950 C.M.R. 32.02. As such, it is unclear why reviewing the records to determine which reports pertain to homicides constitutes research. Additionally, in Attorney Pumphrey's appeal to this office, she states that in order to prevent the Department from conducting an onerous search, she is narrowing her request and now seeks the tipster reports in "the long-closed 2007 case of Commonwealth v. Cornelius Brown, Suffolk Superior Court docket number SUCR2007- 11 1 96." Based on this narrowed request, it is unclear if the Department can provide responsive records for this particular request. The Department must clari@ this matter. I understand a Public Records Division staff attorney contacted your office about this appeal but was unable to reach you prior to the issuance of this decision. Conclusion Given that the Department has not meet its burden to explain how Exemptions (c), (f), and (n) permit it to withhold responsive records in their entirety, the requested records may not be withheld. Accordingly, the Department is ordered to review the records, redact where necessary, and provide Attorney Pumphrey with responsive records, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten business days. 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('i3,sec.state.ma.u~. Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Janet Pumphrey