Framingham Unfiltered v. Framingham, City of - City Clerk (SPR 20221282)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records June 15, 2022 SPR22/1282 Paul J. Iversen City of Framingham 150 Concord Street Framingham, MA 01702 Dear Mr. Iversen: I have received the petition of Framingham Unfiltered appealing the response of the City of Framingham (City) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On June 1, 2022, the requestor sought “. . . the list of cameras with their location installed in Framingham to track vehicles involved in suspected criminal activity – along with the direction they are pointed and the definition of criminal activity (e.g. if expiration of inspection sticker or parking violation in [sic] considered a criminal activity).” The City provided a response on June 1, 2022 denying access to the responsive records pursuant to Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f). Unsatisfied with the City’s response, the requestor petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR22/1282, 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. 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

Paul J. Iverson SPR22/1282 Page 2 June 15, 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 City’s June 1st response In its June 1, 2022 response, the City indicates that it “. . . currently has 12 alpr cameras located throughout the City at various locations not subject for disclosure under exemption (f) 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 (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. The City’s response did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. Instead, the City’s response merely cites Exemption (f) without any further explanation as to the exemption’s applicability to the withheld records. The City is not permitted to issue a blanket denial without providing any further information with respect to the requested records. Consequently, I find the City has not satisfied its burden in responding to this records request. As stated above, the custodian bears the burden to prove with specificity any exemption that applies. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv). If the City maintains the records are exempt from public disclosure, it must provide a written explanation, with specificity, how the exemption applies to the withheld

Paul J. Iverson SPR22/1282 Page 3 June 15, 2022 records. Further, I find the City did not meet its burden of explaining with specificity how the records, in their entirety, are exempt from disclosure. See Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide the requestor with a response to the 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: Framingham Unfiltered