Stephanie Deeley v. East Bridgewater Police Department (SPR 20190651)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor ofR ecords April 10,2019 SPR19/0651 Sgt. William Patterson -----T,_,.o....,·wfr-Bf-East Bridgewater Polioo-f)e.~1::.narurt-t:1m=enHJt1c--------------------------- 153 Central Street East Bridgewater, MA 02333 Dear Sgt. Patterson: I have received the petition of Stephanie Deeley appealing the response of the East Bridgewater Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § lOA; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, Ms. Deeley requested "Police Report for response to a 9-1-1 call on the evening of 3/10/2013 to 3 Satucket Ave, E. Bridgewater." The Department denied her request claiming the responsive record is exempt from disclosure pursuant to Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(±). 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, § 1O (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. If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § lO(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the 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

Sgt. William Patterson SPR19/0651 Page 2 April 10, 2019 Exemption (I) 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, § 7(26)(f). _________ ___.£A~c=u...,_st..._o.,_....dian~0Lrecmds__general1JmusLdemonstr-ate__a__pr-ejudice--to-iiwestigati¥e--effu:ct~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. In its response, the Department indicates that the requested record "is directly related to an open, ongoing investigation. Such investigation is currently being conducted by the Plymouth County District Attorney's Office who retains jurisdiction over this matter. Due to such active investigation, the disclosure of the requested record would so greatly prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest." In her petition for appeal, Ms. Deeley indicates that the Department previously provided a copy of the requested record to the Brockton Enterprise, and the provided record was the subject of a Brockton Enterprise article published on March 10, 2013. As such, it is unclear why provision of the responsive record in response to this request would prejudice investigative efforts. Further, it is unclertain why the record is being withheld in its entirety and cannot be redacted and segregable portions provided to Ms. Deeley. As a result, the Department has not met its burden of explaining with specificity how the report, in its entirety, is exempt from disclosure. See Reinstein v. Police Comm'r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § lO(a).

Sgt. William Patterson SPR19/0651 Page 3 April 10, 2019 Conclusion Given that the Department has not met its burden to explain how an exemption applies to the requested records, the requested records may not be withheld. Accordingly, the Department is ordered to review the records, redact where necessary, and provide Ms. Deeley 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@sec.state.ma.us. The Department may file a request for reconsideration of this determination within ten business days of the date of this determination letter. SincereL1,____ ~ Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Stephanie Deeley