Craig P. Shibley v. Worcester County District Attorney's Office (SPR 20220404)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records March 4, 2022 SPR22/0404 Mark Relation, Esq. Records Access Officer Office of the Worcester District Attorney 225 Main St. G301 Worcester, MA 01608 Dear Attorney Relation: I have received a petition from Craig Shibley appealing the response of the Office of the Worcester District Attorney (Office) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On February 3, 2022, Mr. Shibley requested, “[a]ny document that can clearly demonstrate the WDAO and its SPDU is actively pursuing new leads at the present time.” The Office responded on February 17, 2022. Unsatisfied with the Office’s response, Mr. Shibley petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR22/0404, 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 agency or municipality 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 Office’s February 17th response In its February 17th response, the Office stated, the Office cited Exemption (f) 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

Mark Relation, Esq, SPR22/0404 Page 2 March 4, 2022 Public Records Law to withhold the requested records. 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. In its response, the Office stated that this request seeks the materials which “constitute ‘investigatory materials’ that are exempt from disclosure under the public records law. G.L. c. 4 § 7(26)(f). This exemption applies even to cases where persons have not been charged with crimes. See Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 63 (1976). The exemption serves many salutary purposes including, ‘the prevention of the disclosure of confidential investigative techniques, procedures, or sources of information, the encouragement of individual citizens to come forward and speak freely with police concerning matters under investigation, and the creation of initiative that police officers might be completely candid in recording their observations, hypotheses and interim conclusions.’ Bougas, 371 Mass. at 62.” The Office’s response did not provide supporting information on how the investigative process is ongoing. It is 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). Order Accordingly, the Office is ordered to provide Mr. Shibley with a response to the

Mark Relation, Esq, SPR22/0404 Page 3 March 4, 2022 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