Steven S. Blair v. Methuen, City of - Police Department (SPR 20221656)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 1, 2022 SPR22/1656; SPR22/1657 Brittany Getchell Records Department Methuen Police Department 90 Hampshire Street Methuen, MA 02445 Dear Ms. Getchell: I have received the petition of Steven S. Blair, Esq., of Perrault Blair Law Group, PLLC, appealing the response of the Methuen Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On June 23, 2022, Attorney Blair requested, “… copy of all videos obtained from Elixir …” in relation to a specific incident. The Department responded on June 14, 2022 and June 27, 2022. Unsatisfied with the Department’s responses, Attorney Blair petitioned this office and these appeals, SPR22/1656 and SPR22/1657, were 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

Brittany Getchell SPR22/1656; SPR22/1657 Page 2 August 1, 2022 The Department’s Responses In its June 14 and June 27, 2022 responses, the Department cited Exemption (f) 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 289-290. In its response, the Department asserted, “… the information within this report/footage is relative to an ongoing investigation that is currently pending litigation, disclosure of this information could prejudice this case and the possibility of effective law enforcement efforts.” The Department’s response did not provide supporting information on how the investigative process is ongoing. It is additionally 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). Consequently, I find that the Department has not met its burden to withhold the responsive records, in their entirety, from disclosure. See G. L. c. 66, § l0 (a) (any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Attorney Blair with a response to the request in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations

Brittany Getchell SPR22/1656; SPR22/1657 Page 3 August 1, 2022 within 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, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Steven S. Blair, Esq.