Jim Haddadin v. Boston Police Department (SPR 20191442)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records August 1, 2019 SPR19/1442 Sergeant Detective John Boyle Boston Police Department Office of Media Relations 1 Schroeder Plaza Boston, MA 02120 Dear Sergeant Detective Boyle: I have received the petition of Jim Haddadin of NBC] 0 Boston appealing the response of the Boston Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 1O A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, Mr. Haddadin requested "all police reports associated with the department's response to a call for service at 229 Chelsea St. at 6:30 a.m. on Tuesday, July 9. For reference, this matter was assigned complaint number 192052479." The Depatiment responded on July 18, 2019 by denying access to responsive records under Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f). 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 potiion of the responsive record . . Appeal 111 In its July 18 response the Department indicates "[t]he records you requested are 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

Sergeant Detective John Boyle SPR19/1442 Page 2 August 1, 2019 associated with an active and ongoing investigation. As such, your request is denied, as all records associated with this matter are exempt from disclosure pursuant to the investigative exemption to the public records law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7 (26) (f). Disclosure of any responsive records would harm the investigative effo1is of the Department." Mr. Haddadin objects to this response. 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 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 teclmiques 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 18th response, I find the Department has not provided a response in a manner consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 1O (b )(iv) which provides that 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 .... " Fmiher, it is 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 Department 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 statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Any non-exempt, segregable p01iion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § lO(a). I understand a staff member of the Public Records Division contacted you about this appeal.

Sergeant Detective John Boyle SPR19/1442 Page 3 August 1, 2019 Conclusion Accordingly, the Department 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 Shawn Williams, Esq.