Jim Haddadin v. Framingham, City of - Police Department (SPR 20210972)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records May 3, 2021 SPR21/0972 Marilia Martins Records Access Officer Framingham Police Department 150 Concord Street Framingham, MA 01702 Dear Ms. Martins: I have received the petition of Jim Haddadin of NBC10 Boston appealing the response of the Framingham Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On April 12, 2021, Mr. Haddadin requested, “…copies of all records created or received since Jan. 1, 2021 that pertain to alleged Criminal Justice Information Services violations by city employees [including] but not be limited to, communications provided to the city and/or the police department regarding [identified] CJIS case and any written or electronic records that pertain to it.” The Department responded on April 16, 2021. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Haddadin appealed and SPR21/0972 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(d)(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…”); 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). 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

Marilia Martins SPR21/0972 Page 2 May 3, 2021 The Department’s April 16th response In its response the Department stated, “[t]he records requested are being withheld pursuant to exemption (f) as they pertain to an ongoing investigation.” 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. Att’y 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 officials to provide an assurance of confidentiality to private citizens so that they will speak openly and voluntarily about matters. Bougas 371 Mass 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 identifying details of any victims, complainants and voluntary witnesses, and where the individuals can be indirectly identified even with redaction. The Department’s April 16th response did not provide supporting information on how the records fall under Exemption (f) in their entirety. 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. Haddadin’s request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv);

Marilia Martins SPR21/0972 Page 3 May 3, 2021 950 C.M.R. 2.06(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). It is additionally uncertain how disclosure “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). Further, it is unclear why the Department cannot redact where necessary to preserve confidentiality and provide the remaining portions of the record. See Antell, 52 Mass. App. Ct. at 248. Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). As a result, I find that the Department did not satisfy its burden in responding to this records request. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Haddadin with a response to the request, 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. Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Jim Haddadin