Jordan M. Rice v. Department of State Police - Crime Lab (SPR 20200974)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records July 2, 2020 SPR20/0974 Darina Griffin, Esq. Department of State Police Crime Lab 124 Acton Street Maynard, MA 01754 Dear Attorney Griffin: I have received the petition of Jordan Rice appealing the response of the Department of State Police Crime Lab (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, Mr. Rice requested photographs in connection to an identified murder investigation. The Department responded on June 3, 2020, providing responsive records, as well as withholding identified records under Exemptions (c) and (f). Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Rice petitioned this office and SPR20/0974 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, § 10A(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, § 10(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. Current appeal In its June 3rd response, the Department indicates “the Department has withheld several photographs pursuant to the public records exemptions of G. L.c. 4, § 7 cl. 26(c) and G. L. c. 4, § 7 cl. 26(f). The Department has provided an exemption log that describes the withheld 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

Darina Griffin, Esq. SPR20/0974 Page 2 July 7, 2020 photographs. Specifically, the Department has withheld autopsy photographs, photographs of apparent blood and the body of the deceased taken at the scene pursuant to G. L. c.4, § 7 cl. 26(c) (medical/privacy exemption) and G. L. c. 4, § 7 cl. 26(f) (investigatory exemption)…[t]herefore, the Department withheld several photographs that depict apparent blood stains, human matter, the deceased body at the scene and autopsy photographs pursuant to G. L. c. 4, § 7 cl. 26(c)…the public disclosure of these images would also impact the privacy rights of others and would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities, specifically the family and close contacts of the deceased…[t]he Department asserts that graphic photograph of the deceased, autopsy photographs and blood at the crime scene and photographs that depict personal identifying information contain intimate details of a highly personal nature and are therefore exempt from disclosure.” The Department further states “the investigatory exemption is also relevant to note in the context of these photographs wherefore the information was gathered in the context of a criminal investigation…[p]ublically disclosing the photographs that depict apparent blood, the deceased body and autopsy should similarly be withheld as the public interest is not served by this type of disclosure.” In his current appeal petition Mr. Rice states he “objects to this exemption claim and requests this Office conduct an in camera inspection to resolve the 14 photographs…” Based on the foregoing, it is unclear what the basis of Mr. Rices’s appeal is. Specifically, it is uncertain to what portions of the Department’s claims under Exemptions (c) and (f) Mr. Rice objects. Mr. Rice is reminded that all petitions for appeal “shall specifically describe the nature of the requestor’s objections to the response or failure to timely respond.” 950 C.M.R. 32.08(l)(f). Conclusion Accordingly, Mr. Rice must describe his specific objections to the Department’s June 3rd response. Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Jordan Rice