Jeff Raymond v. Millbury, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20200546)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records March 31, 2020 SPR20/0546 Lt. Brian Lewos Town of Millbury Police Department 127 Elm Street Millbury, MA 01527 Dear Mr. Lewos: I have received the petition of Jeff Raymond of the Millbury-Sutton Chronicle appealing the response of the Town of Millbury Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § lOA; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, Mr. Raymond requested a copy of "the 'binder' of 'alarms' held by the Millbury Police Department, believed to be a database or catalog of Millbury buildings with alarm systems that have registered with the Department .... along with information about who takes part, and the procedures surrounding the acquisition of names and participants, security protocols, policies surrounding its use within the Department, and the dates in which the binder was established and the policies (if any) were enacted." The City responded to Mr. Raymond, withholding responsive records pursuant to Exemptions (f) and (n) of the Public Records Law. Unsatisfied with this response, Mr. Raymond petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR 20/0546, was opened as a result. 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, § IOA(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 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

Lt. Brian Lewos SPR20/0546 Page2 March 31, 2020 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. Current Appeal In its response, the Department asserts that the responsive records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Exemptions (f) and (n) of the Public Records Law. Exemption (f) 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, 3 71 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. As a matter of course, witness provided information is essential to efficient and effective law enforcement. This exemption is intended to allow investigative official.s to provide an assurance of confidentiality to private citizens so that they will speak openly and voluntarily about matters. Id. at 62. Any information contained in a witness statement, which if disclosed would create a grave risk of directly or indirectly identifying the voluntary witness is subject to withholding. Globe Newspaper Co., 388 Mass. at 438. The disclosure of the names and other identifying information of victims, complainants and voluntary witnesses may deter other potential witnesses and citizens from providing information to law enforcement agencies in future investigations. Therefore, Exemption (f) will allow the withholding of the name and

Lt. Brian Lewos SPR20/0546 Page 3 March 31, 2020 identifying details of any victims, complainants and voluntary witnesses, and where the individuals can be indirectly identified even with redaction. Exemption (n) Exemption (n) permits the withholding of: records, including, but not limited to, blueprints, plans, policies, procedures and schematic drawings, which relate to internal layout and structural elements, security measures, emergency preparedness, threat or vulnerability assessments, or any other records relating to the security or safety of persons or buildings, structures, facilities, utilities, transportation, cyber security or other infrastructure located within the commonwealth, the disclosure of which, in the reasonable judgment of the record custodian, subject to review by the supervisor of public records under subsection ( c) of section 10 of chapter 66, is likely to jeopardize public safety or cyber security. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(n). Exemption (n) allows for the withholding of certain records which if released would jeopardize public safety. It is the duty of the custodian ofrecords to exercise reasonable judgment to determine whether release of the record is likely to jeopardize public safety. The first prong of Exemption (n) examines "whether, and to what degree, the record sought resembles the records listed as examples in the statute;" specifically, the "inquiry is whether, and to what degree, the record is one a terrorist 'would find useful to maximize damage."' People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep't of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280, 289-90 (2017). · The second prong of Exemption (n) examines "the factual and contextual support for the proposition that disclosure of the record is 'likely to jeopardize public safety."' Id. at 289-90. The PETA decision further provides that "[b]ecause the records custodian must exercise 'reasonable judgment' in making that determination, the primary focus on review is whether the custodian has provided sufficient factual heft for the supervisor of public records or the reviewing court to conclude that a reasonable person would agree with the custodian's determination given the context of the particular case." Id. Burden ofs pecificity in responding and claiming exemptions Pursuant to the Public Records Law, the burden shall be on the records custodian to prove with specificity the exemption which applies. G. L. c. 66, § 1O (b )(iv); see also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm'r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511. The Department did not meet its burden of demonstrating how the responsive records, in their entirety, are exempt from disclosure. See Reinstein v. Police Comm'r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90

Lt. Brian Lewos SPR20/0546 Page 4 March 31, 2020 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Where possible, the Department must produce any non-exempt segregable portions of the records. G. L. c. 66, § lO(a). Despite the Department's response, it remains unclear what responsive records the Department possesses. The Department must identify what records it has in its possession, custody or control that are responsive to Mr. Raymond's request. See G. L. c. 66, § lO(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3)(c)(4) (a records access officer must provide a written response that identifies the record, categories of records, or portions of the record it intends to withhold). Further, although the Department indicates that it is withholding the records pursuant to Exemptions (f) and (n), it is unclear how these exemptions apply to the responsive records in their entirety. The Department must provide a detailed response to specifically explain how the exemptions apply to withhold the requested records in compliance with the Public Records Law. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Raymond with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations as soon as practicable. 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: Jeff Raymond, Millbury-Sutton Chronicle