Joshua A. Lewin v. Pittsfield, City of - Police Department (SPR 20211050)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records May 7, 2021 SPR21/1050 Kerri Striebel Records Access Officer Pittsfield Police Department 39 Allen Street Pittsfield, MA 01201 Dear Ms. Striebel: I have received the petition of Attorney Joshua A. Lewin appealing the response of the Pittsfield Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Attorney Lewin requested “the Motor Vehicle Crash Report form” and “the dispatch log” related to “a small motor vehicle accident in 2018.” The Department provided a response, which included requested records redacted pursuant to Exemptions (c) and (f). Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Attorney Lewin petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR21/1050, was opened as a result. Purpose of request; identity of requestor Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Attorney Lewin’s purpose in making the request has no bearing on the public status of any existing responsive records. It should be noted that the discovery process and the Public Records Law are two distinct and independent avenues for gaining access to records. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has held that while a party’s access to records may be limited by the Public Records Law, this may not preclude obtaining the records through discovery. Commonwealth v. Wanis, 426 Mass. 639 (1998). See also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1)(a) (the administrative appeal process “shall not apply to records in which an individual, or a representative of the individual, has a unique right of access to the record through statutory, regulatory, judicial or other applicable means”). As such, Attorney Lewin may wish to consider another means of seeking to obtain any existing responsive records. 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

Kerri Striebel SPR21/1050 Page 2 May 7, 2021 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) (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). Current Appeal In a response provided by the Department on April 23, 2021, the Department states, “the requested material is exempt from disclosure. Specifically, Exemption C, (1), (2): Personal and medical files or information also any other materials or data relating to specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.… [a]lso, Exemption: F, (Confidentiality), 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.” Exemption (c) Exemption (c) applies to: 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.

Kerri Striebel SPR21/1050 Page 3 May 7, 2021 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 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 In its response, the Department states, “this record contains intimate details of a highly personal nature relating to a specifically named individual.” I find the Department has not met its burden to redact the requested records pursuant to Exemption (c). Although the Department states the records contain intimate details of a highly personal nature, it does not provide any information of how it is the type of personal information contemplated under PETA. See PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. Additionally, it is unclear how disclosure of the redacted information would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities; and whether any of the information is available from other sources. Id. Further, the Department’s response does not address the balancing test outlined in PETA. Id at 291. The Department must clarify these matters. 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

Kerri Striebel SPR21/1050 Page 4 May 7, 2021 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 289-90. 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. In its response, the Department states, “any details in witness statements which if released create a grave risk of directly identifying a private citizen who volunteers as a witness are indefinitely exempt. As a result, such information must be redacted under the law.” I find the Department has not met its burden to redact the requested records pursuant to Exemption (f). Specifically, it is unclear which redactions have been made pursuant to Exemption (f); as well as if the redactions relate solely to witness information. It is additionally unclear whether the records pertain to an ongoing investigation. The Department must clarify these matters. Conclusion The Department is ordered to provide a response to Attorney Lewin in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) business

Kerri Striebel SPR21/1050 Page 5 May 7, 2021 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: Joshua A. Lewin, Esq.