Jim Haddadin v. Bridgewater Raynham Regional School District (SPR 20191338)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records July 18, 2019 SPR19/1338 Judith MacDougall Records Access Officer Bridgewater-Raynham Regional School District 166 Mt. Prospect Street Bridgewater, MA 02324 Dear Ms. MacDougall: I have received the petition of Jim Haddadin of NBC] 0 Boston appealing the response of the Bridgewater-Raynham Regional School District (District) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § lOA; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, Mr. Haddadin requested "copies of all communications, written or electronic, received by the district from Lucini Bus Lines regarding the June 4, 2019 incident in which a student suffered a medical emergency on a school bus parked outside LaLiberte Elementary School." The District responded on July 2, 2019 by denying access to records. 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. Appeal In its July 211 d response the District indicates "[a ]s you know, the above incident is 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

Judith MacDougall SPRl 9/1338 Page 2 July 18, 2019 currently an open police investigation. Therefore, we will not furnish any items that may diminish the integrity of the investigation as advised by First Assistant District Attorney, Patrick Bomberg of the Bristol County District Attorney's Office. Should you have any further questions or requests, please direct them to Mary Lee of the Bristol County District Attorney's Office." Based on this response, it appears the District is referring to Exemption (f) to withhold responsive records. Exemption (/) 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 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. Despite its July 2nd response, the District must confirm which exemption it is invoking to withhold records. Further, although the District refers Mr. Haddadin to the Bristol County District Attorney's Office for additional questions or requests, it is unclear which responsive records the District possesses, if any. See G. L. c. 66, § 1O (b )(iv) ( a written response must "identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based ... "); G. L. c. 66, § 1O (b )(ii)-(iii). It also remains unclear how disclosing responsive records "would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest" as required by Exemption (f). As such, the District has not met its burden to establish how the responsive records may be withheld in their entirety under Exemption (f). See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90 (the

Judith MacDougall SPR19/1338 Page 3 July 18, 2019 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, § 1O (a). Co11clusio11 Accordingly, the District is ordered to provide Mr. Haddadin with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within 10 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. Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Jim Haddadin