Todd Wallack v. Office of the District Attorney - Worcester District (SPR 20180710)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records May 30,2018 SPR181710 Lindsay Corcoran Records Access Officer Worcester County District Attorney's Office 225 Main Street, G30 1 Worcester, MA 0 1608 Dear Ms. Corcoran: I have received the petition of Todd Wallack of the Boston Globe appealing the response of the Office of the District Attorney Worcester District (DAO) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, $ 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, Mr. Wallack requested "any and all records" pertaining to an identified person and provided categories of records that should be included with the requested records. Previous appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR171752 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 15,201 7); SPR171925 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 21,20 17); SPRl711123 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 1,2017 ). SPRl81196 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 22,20 18); SPRl81486 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (April 26,2018 ). In my March 22'Id determination I found the DAO may withhold responsive letters under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 4, $7 (26)(c). In my April 26thd etermination I found the DAO met its burden to withhold portions of the responsive videos that depict medical information under the first clause of Exemption (c). I also found that to the extent that portions of the videos depict "internal personnel rules and practices," such as the portions showing sensitive security measures such as cell door loclts, and the "proper performance of necessary governmental functions requires such withholding," the DAO may withhold those portions under Exemption (b). However, it was unclear whether any portions of the videos may be released that do not depict "internal personnel rules and practices" that impact the proper performance of necessary government functions, specifically the maintenance of a secure penal institution. I also found the DAO had not met its burden to show how Exemption (n) applies to withhold the videos. 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

Lindsay Corcoran Page 2 May 30,2018 I ordered the DAO to review the request, redact records where necessary and provide Mr. Wallack responsive records, in a manner consistent with the order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations. The DAO provided a response on May 14,2018 in which it cited additional reasons to withhold the responsive video. G. L. c. 4, 57 (26)(b), (n). Mr. Wallack appealed and SPR18/710 was opened as a result. Current appeal Exemption (b) Exemption (b) permits the withholding of: records that are related solely to internal personnel rules and practices of the government unit, provided however, that such records shall be withheld only to the extent that proper performance of necessary government functions requires such withholding There are no authoritative Massachusetts decisions interpreting Exemption (b). The general purpose of the cognate federal exemption, however, is to relieve agencies of the burden of assembling and maintaining for public inspection matters in which the public cannot reasonably be expected to have a legitimate interest. For Exemption (b) to apply in Massachusetts, a records custodian must demonstrate not only that the records relate solely to the internal personnel practices of the government entity, but also that proper performance of necessary government functions will be inhibited by disclosure. In a February 2,201 8 response the DAO explained that the video in its possession includes "footage from the surveillance camera in the general cell block of Souza-Baranowski from 3 p.m. on 4/18/17 through 7 a.m. on 4/19/17. There is also about 35 minutes of footage from eight different cameras throughout the prison showing the route first responders took out of the cell block to the intake dock where the ambulance arrives. Around 10 minutes of video show Mr. Hernandez's naked body being removed from his cell and transported through the prison, all while life-saving measures are being performed." In its April 9,2018 response the DAO indicated "[vlideo taken within a correctional facility raises serious security concerns, as such videos contain images of sensitive security measures such as cell door locks and camera angles or blind spots. This information, if released, could be used to undermine the safety and security of the facilities, risking the safety of inmates and staff, as well as the public at large." You also note that "[rlelease of the video may reveal the particular angle of the camera or disclose the location of a hidden surveillance camera. Although inmates may be aware that there are surveillance cameras at SBCC, they may not be aware of all

Lindsay Corcoran Page 3 May 30,20 18 of the locations of all of the surveillance cameras. Release of the videos may disclose those locations, thereby hindering [the Department of Correctionsl's ability to monitor SBCC in the future." With respect to providing segregable portions of the videos, in its May 14'~re sponse the DAO asserts "releasing even still images or portions of the video would depict 'internal personnel rules and practices' that impact the proper performance of necessary government functions because any image could reveal the location of the security camera." In light of the DAO's responses, I find it has met its burden to show how disclosing any portion of the responsive videos would depict "internal personnel rules and practices," such as sensitive security measures related to video monitoring of the facility, and the "proper performance of necessary governmental functions," such as maintaining a secure penal institution, requires such withholding. Therefore, I find the DAO has met its burden to withhold the responsive videos under Exemption (b). Accordingly, I will not opine on the DAO's other exemption claims. Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Todd Wallack