Andrew Quemere v. Norwood, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20220928)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records April 29, 2022 SPR22/0928 Officer Mario Costa Chief Clerk Norwood Police Department 137 Nahatan Street Norwood, MA 02062 Dear Officer Costa: I have received the petition of Andrew Quemere appealing the response of the Norwood Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On March 21, 2022, Mr. Quemere requested the arrest records and investigation reports of a named officer. On March 24, 2022, the Department responded. Prior Appeal The requested records were the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR22/0692 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 30, 2022). On April 6, 2022, the Department provided a response. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Quemere petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR22/0928, 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 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

Officer Mario Costa SPR22/0928 Page 2 April 29, 2022 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 April 6th response In its April 6, 2022 response, the Department indicated that it is withholding the requested records pursuant to Exemption (a), (c), and (f). 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, 371 Mass at 62. 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 a telephone conversation between this office and a representative of the Department, this office was made aware that release of these records would prejudice investigative efforts. In light of the above, I find the Department may permissibly withhold the responsive records from disclosure under Exemption (f) at this time. Please be aware that a change in the status of the investigation could impact the applicability of Exemption (f). Finding that the Department has met its burden to withhold the requested records under Exemption (f), I decline to opine on the Department’s Exemption (a) and Exemption (c) claims supporting non-disclosure of the records. If Mr. Quemere is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior

Officer Mario Costa SPR22/0928 Page 3 April 29, 2022 Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies). Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Andrew Quemere