MA Public Records Search
← Back to Search

Elisabeth Kaplan v. Newton, City of - Police Department (SPR 20200990)

Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records · Filed 06-22-2020

ClosedAppealPetitioner Won

SPR 20200990 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Elisabeth Kaplan concerning records held by Newton, City of - Police Department, opened 06-22-2020. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records.

Case Details

Case Number
20200990
Case Type
Appeal
Case Subtype
Initial
Status
Closed
Requester
Elisabeth Kaplan
Custodian
Newton, City of - Police Department
Date Opened
06-22-2020
Date Closed
07-06-2020
Date Request Submitted
06-21-2020
Response Provided Date
06-22-2020

PDF Document

Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records July 6, 2019 SPR20/0990 Steven R. Smith Bureau Commander Newton Police Department 1321 Washington Street Newton, MA 02465 Dear Mr. Smith: I have received the petition of Elisabeth Kaplan appealing the response of the Newton Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, on June 21, 2020, Ms. Kaplan requested a copy of a certain police report. The Department responded on June 22, 2020, indicating they are withholding the records pursuant to Exemption (a). Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. Kaplan petitioned this office and SPR20/0990 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. The Department’s June 22nd Response In its June 22nd response, the Department states “[p]lease be advised that your request is denied. The records you requested may include reports of rape, sexual assault, or domestic abuse 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

Steven R. Smith SPR20/0990 Page 2 July 6, 2020 which are exempt pursuant to G. L. c. 41, § 970; and G. L. c. 265, 24C. Therefore, the reports may be withheld from public disclosure pursuant to exemption (a) of the public records law. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26).” Exemption (a) Exemption (a), known as the statutory exemption, permits the withholding of records that are: specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). A governmental entity may use the statutory exemption as a basis for withholding requested materials where the language of the exempting statute relied upon expressly or necessarily implies that the public’s right to inspect records under the Public Records Law is restricted. See Attorney Gen. v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 54 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-46 (1977). This exemption creates two categories of exempt records. The first category includes records that are specifically exempt from disclosure by statute. Such statutes expressly state that such a record either “shall not be a public record,” “shall be kept confidential” or “shall not be subject to the disclosure provision of the Public Records Law.” The second category under the exemption includes records deemed exempt under statute by necessary implication. Such statutes expressly limit the dissemination of particular records to a defined group of individuals or entities. A statute is not a basis for exemption if it merely lists individuals or entities to whom the records are to be provided; the statute must expressly limit access to the listed individuals or entities. G. L. c. 41, § 97D states: All reports of rape and sexual assault or attempts to commit such offenses, all reports of abuse perpetrated by family or household members, as defined in section 1 of chapter 209A, and all communications between police officers and victims of such offenses or abuse shall not be public reports and shall be maintained by the police departments in a manner that shall assure their confidentiality; provided, however, that all such reports shall be accessible at all reasonable times, upon written request, to: (i) the victim, the victim’s attorney, others specifically authorized by the victim to obtain such information, prosecutors and (ii) victim-witness advocates as defined in section 1 of chapter 258B, domestic violence victims’ counselors as defined in section 20K of chapter 233, sexual assault counselors as defined in section 20J of chapter 233, if such access is necessary in the performance of their duties; and provided further, that

Steven R. Smith SPR20/0990 Page 3 July 6, 2020 all such reports shall be accessible at all reasonable times, upon written, telephonic, facsimile or electronic mail request to law enforcement officers, district attorneys or assistant district attorneys and all persons authorized to admit persons to bail pursuant to section 57 of chapter 276. . . . G. L. c. 41, § 97D. That portion of the records of a court or any police department of the commonwealth or any of its political subdivisions, which contains the name of the victim in an arrest, investigation or complaint for rape or assault with intent to rape under section thirteen B, 13Bl/3, 13B3/4, twenty-two, twenty-two A, 22B, 22C, twenty-three, 23A, 23B, twenty-four or twenty-four B, inclusive, of chapter two hundred and sixty-five, or an arrest, investigation or complaint for trafficking of persons under section 50 of said chapter 265, shall be withheld from public inspection, except with the consent of a justice of such court where the complaint or indictment is or would be prosecuted. Said portion of such court record or police record shall not be determined to be a public record under the provisions of section seven of chapter four. G. L. c. 265, § 24C. Burden of specificity in claiming exemptions Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be upon the records custodian to prove with specificity the exemption which applies. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); (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 …”) see also Globe Newspaper ----------------- Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511; Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemption are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). The Department’s response did not contain the specificity required in denial of access to public records. Instead, the Department’s response merely cites the statute without any further explanation as to the statute’s applicability to the responsive records. A records custodian is required to not only cite an exemption but to specifically explain the applicability of the exemption to the requested records for compliance with the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Kaplan a response in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations as soon as practicable. A

Steven R. Smith SPR20/0990 Page 4 July 6, 2020 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: Elisabeth Kaplan