Geraldine Houde v. Bellingham, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20221169)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records June 2, 2022 SPR22/1169 Gerard Daigle, Jr. Chief of Police Bellingham Police Department 30 Blackstone Street Bellingham, MA 02019 Dear Chief Daigle: I have received the petition of Geraldine Houde appealing the response of the Bellingham Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On February 7, 2022, Ms. Houde requested an identified interview dated April 6, 1989. Previous appeal; in camera review This request was the subject of a previous appeal and subsequent in camera inspection. See SPR22/0564 Determinations of the Supervisor of Records (March 21, 2022 and April 28, 2022). In my April 28th determination, I ordered the Department to provide additional information, including current activity that demonstrates that the investigation regarding this matter is active and ongoing. The Department provided a response on May 17, 2022. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Houde petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR22/1169, 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, Ms. Houde’s purpose in making the request has no bearing on the public status of 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

Chief Gerard Daigle, Jr. SPR22/1169 Page 2 June 2, 2022 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. 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 May 17th response In its May 17, 2022 response, the Department explains that “. . . additional investigatory information by third-parties was provided to Bellingham Police on March 22, 2022. Such information was relayed by Bellingham detectives to the lead investigatory agency, Massachusetts State Police, for further investigation and follow up. As such, based on this newly provided information as well as ongoing information reviewed by investigators in comparison with the case at issue, of which there is no statute of limitations, the [Department] maintains that the requested information is exempt at this time pursuant to exemption (f).” In light of this new development, I find the Department has demonstrated that its investigation regarding this matter is active and ongoing and may permissibly withhold the requested record under Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law at this time. It should be noted that a change in the status of the investigation could impact the applicability of Exemption (f). Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed.

Chief Gerard Daigle, Jr. SPR22/1169 Page 3 June 2, 2022 Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Geraldine Houde