Craig P. Shibley v. Department of State Police - Crime Lab (SPR 20202581)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records January 11, 2021 SPR20/2581 Darina Griffin, Esq. Massachusetts Department of State Police Crime Laboratory 124 Acton Street Maynard, MA 01754 Dear Attorney Griffin: I have received the petition of Craig Shibley appealing the response of the Department of State Police (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, on October 26, 2020, Mr. Shibley requested “documents submitted to the [Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab] on behalf of” four identified state troopers, including: 1. “The Lab’s LIMS documents relative to all evidence tested and reported out in each case; 2. The Department’s Chain of Custody documents relative to the evidence submitted in each case by the five [sic] aforementioned individuals; 3. All related Evidence Submission Forms filed.” Previous appeal The requested records were the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR20/2306 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 9, 2020). In my December 9th determination, I ordered the Department to provide Mr. Shibley with a response, provided in a manner consistent with the order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations. Subsequently, the Department provided a response on December 23, 2020. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Shibley petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR20/2581, 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 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. SPR20/2581 Page 2 January 11, 2021 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. If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. The Department’s December 23rd response In its December 23, 2020 response, the Department indicates that it “. . . maintains a LIMS system which contains records of evidence submission and chain of custody reports . . . [and] . . . evidence submission forms associated with evidence submissions.” The Department enclosed “. . . a spreadsheet that includes information from [its] LIMS system related to items submitted by [3 of the identified troopers].” The Department also indicated that it did not have submissions by one of the identified troopers. The Department asserts that it withheld “. . . any other LIMS documentation, chain of custody reports and evidence submission forms” under Exemptions (a), (c), and (f) of the Public Records Law. 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

Darina Griffin, Esq. SPR20/2581 Page 3 January 11, 2021 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. Under Exemption (a), citing G. L. c. 6, §§ 167, 172, 178 and G. L. c. 22E, § 9, the Department explains that “. . . because you are seeking LIMS information, chain of custody documents and evidence submission forms related to items submitted for forensic testing related to homicide investigations, a portion of the records inherently contain DNA testing records. In cases where there is an identified suspect, the information may also be considered CORI. CORI and DNA information falls squarely within the statutory exemptions contained in MGL c. 4 §7, cl. 26(a) and the public interest is not served by public disclosure of this information.” Exemption (c) Exemption (c) permits the withholding of: personnel and medical files or information and any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; provided, however, that this subclause shall not apply to records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Analysis under Exemption (c) is subjective in nature and requires a balancing of the public’s right to know against the relevant privacy interests at stake. Torres v. Attorney Gen., 391 Mass. 1, 9 (1984); Attorney Gen. v. Assistant Comm’r of Real Property Dep’t, 380 Mass. 623, 625 (1980). Therefore, determinations must be made on a case by case basis. This exemption does not protect all data relating to specifically named individuals. Rather, there are factors to consider when assessing the weight of the privacy interest at stake: (1) whether disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities; (2) whether the materials sought contain intimate details of a highly personal nature; and (3) whether the same information is available from other sources. See People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280, 292 (2017). The types of personal information which this exemption is designed to protect includes: marital status, paternity, substance abuse, government assistance, family disputes and reputation. Id. at 292 n.13; see also Doe v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 415, 427 (1988) ---------------------------- (holding that a motor vehicle licensee has a privacy interest in disclosure of his social security number). This exemption requires a balancing test which provides that where the public interest in obtaining the requested information substantially outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of

Darina Griffin, Esq. SPR20/2581 Page 4 January 11, 2021 privacy, the private interest in preventing disclosure must yield. PETA, 477 Mass. at 291. The public has a recognized interest in knowing whether public servants are carrying out their duties in a law-abiding and efficient manner. Id. at 292. Under Exemption (c), the Department explains that the requested records are exempt, because they “. . . contain[] personal information, medical information and the names and identifying information of civilian witnesses or other witnesses exempted by G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). . . .” The Department states that it “. . . suggests that details of ongoing investigations are private and personal. Publically revealing the information you are seeking infringes upon not only the privacy rights of a victim or their family, but may also reveal medical information that is not a public record. . . . The mere fact that a particular forensic test (such as DNA testing) was or was not completed reveals medical information about an individual. It is already well established that there is a strong public policy in Massachusetts that favors confidentiality as to medical data about a person’s body. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Chief Medical Examiner, 404 Mass. 132, 135 (1987).” 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, 371 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 289-290. Under Exemption (f) the Department states that it “. . . redacted the submitting agency’s case number(s) as those fall within the investigatory exemption. . . .” The Department also asserts that “. . . public release of forensic testing information contained in the laboratory’s LIMS system, the chain of custody reports and the evidence submission forms would constitute ‘investigatory materials’ that are exempt from disclosure under the public record law.” The

Darina Griffin, Esq. SPR20/2581 Page 5 January 11, 2021 Department explains that “[t]he LIMS system contains a number of investigation and case specific items of information that are maintained outside of the public view in furtherance of the investigation. The evidence submission forms contain information related to the specific items of evidence submitted and the type of testing being sought along with other case specific information. The chain of custody forms include specific investigatory information about the item being analyzed and the type of testing requested or completed on an items.” The Department asserts that disclosing these records “. . . would involve the premature disclosure of details of the Commonwealths’ cases as they contain information related to forensic testing in connection with an ongoing homicide investigation. Revealing investigatory information related to forensic testing in response to a public records request would fly in the face of the investigatory exemption outlined in G. L. c. 4, § 7 cl. 26 (f). The very nature of the exemptions is to protect the integrity of police investigations.” Although portions of the records may fall under the above cited exemptions, it is uncertain how the records, “LIMS documentation, chain of custody reports and evidence submission forms,” can be withheld in their entirety. The Department must explain whether segregable portions can be provided. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). With respect to the records that were provided, the Department states that it “. . . redacted the submitting agency’s case number(s) from the responsive records under Exemption (f). However, it is unclear how these case numbers constitute investigative materials and how disclosure “would prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest” as required to withhold records under Exemption (f). The Department must clarify these issues. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Shibley with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (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. Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Craig Shibley