Jordan M. Rice v. Massachusetts State Police (SPR 20201840)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records October 13, 2020 SPR20/1840 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. Previous appeals This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR20/0974 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 2, 2020). In my July 2nd determination, I found the basis of Mr. Rice’s appeal unclear. Mr. Rice clarified his objections, and SPR20/1840 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. 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. SPR20/1840 Page 2 October 13, 2020 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 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 contends “each responsive photo is already part of the Public Court Record! Therefore, the Exemption claim by the Department herein isn't applicable to this Public Records Request…” In light of Mr. Rice’s appeal, the Department did not provide information to establish how the withheld records are not available from other sources. See PETA, 477 Mass. 292. Further, the Department has not met its burden to show that production of records previously disclosed through the prior trial or motions 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 Exemptions (c) and (f). See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90 (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Rice with a response 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.

Darina Griffin, Esq. SPR20/1840 Page 3 October 13, 2020 Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Jordan Rice