William C. Dudley v. Mansfield, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20191892)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray S11pen1isor ofR ecords September 30, 2019 SPR19/1892 Philip Seaward Records Access Officer Mansfield Police Depaiiment 50 West Street Mansfield, MA 02048 Dear Mr. Seaward: I have received the petition of William C. Dudley appealing the response of the Mansfield 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. Dudley requested any investigative files the Department has regarding an identified individual. The Depaiiment responded on August 7, 2019 by providing certain redacted reports but withholding one report in its entirety. The Department , cited Exemptions (a) and (c) of the Public Records Law in supp01i of the redaction and/or withholding ofrecords. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a),(c); G. L. c..41, § 97D. 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. Appeal In its August 7th response the Depaiiment provided 2 responsive reports with portions One Ashbmion Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-2832• Fax: (617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre• pre@sec.state.ma.us

Philip Seward SPR19/1892 Page 2 September 30, 2019 redacted under Exemption (c). The Depaiiment also withheld one report in its entirety under G. L. c. 41, § 97D as it operates through Exemption (a). Based on his appeal petition, it appears Mr. Dudley only objects to the Depatiment's withholding of the rep01i in its entirety. The Depaiiment's August 7111 response provides the statutory language of G. L. c. 41, § 97D and asserts "[a]s a result, the information contained within this report must be withheld , under the law." Despite this response, it is unclear how the record at issue may be withheld in its entirety under the exemption cited. 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). In camera inspection I find that an in camera inspection of the record at issue woi1ld facilitate a determination as to the applicability of the Department's exemption claims. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4). After I complete my review of the document, I will return the record to your custody and issue an opinion on the public or exempt nature of the record. The authority to require the submission of records for an in camera inspection emanates from the Code of Massachusetts Regulations. 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4); see also G. L. c. 66, § 1. This office interprets the in camera inspection process to be analogous to that utilized by the judicial system. See Rock v. Massachusetts Comm'n Against Discrimination, 384 Mass. 198, 206 (1981) (administrative agency entitled deference in the interpretation of its own regulations). Records are not voluntarily submitted, but rather are submitted pursuant to an order by this office that an in camera inspection is necessary to make a proper finding. Records are submitted for the limited purpose ofreview. This office is not the custodian of records examined in camera, therefore, any request made to this office for records being reviewed in camera will be denied. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4)(c). This office has a long history of cooperation with governmental agencies with respect to in camera inspection. Custodians submit copies of the relevant records to this office upon a promise of confidentiality. This office does not release records reviewed in camera to anyone under any circumstances. Upon a determination of the public record status, records reviewed in camera are promptly returned to the custodian. To operate in any other fashion would seriously impede our ability to function and would certainly affect our credibility within the legal community. Co11clusio11 It is my understanding that the Department provided this office with an un-redacted copy of the record at issue for in camera inspection. This office will issue a determination in a manner consistent with the timeframes set out in SPR Bulletin 04-17. See https://www.sec.state.

Philip Seward SPR19/1892 Page 3 September 30, 2019 ma. us/pre/prepra/significant-interest/SPR-Bulletin-04-17-Timeframes-for-Reconsiderations-and In-Camera-Reviews.htm). Sincerely, ~.~ Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: William C. Dudley