Brendan D. Labanara v. Framingham, City of - Police Department (SPR 20222262)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 20, 2022 SPR22/2262 Robert Sibilio Records Access Officer Framingham Police Department 150 Concord Street Framingham, MA 01702 Dear Mr. Sibilio: I have received the petition of Brendan Labanara, Esq. appealing the response of the Framingham Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 31, 2022, Attorney Labanara requested a motor vehicle accident report at a named intersection. Prior Appeal The requested records were the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR22/2168 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (October 5, 2022). In my October 5th determination, I found that the Department had provided a further response to Attorney Labanara on October 5, 2022, and closed the appeal. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Attorney Labanara petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR22/2262, 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 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

Robert Sibilio SPR22/2262 Page 2 October 20, 2022 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 October 5th response On October 5, 2022, the Department provided a response justifying the redactions made to the requested records under Exemption (a) and Exemption (c). Current appeal In his current appeal Attorney Labanara claims that the Department’s redactions were not justified under Exemption (a). Exemption (a) Exemption (a), known as the statutory exemption, permits the withholding of records that are: specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). A governmental entity may use the statutory exemption as a basis for withholding requested materials where the language of the exempting statute relied upon expressly or necessarily implies that the public’s right to inspect records under the Public Records Law is restricted. See Att’y Gen. v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 54 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-46 (1977). This exemption creates two categories of exempt records. The first category includes records that are specifically exempt from disclosure by statute. Such statutes expressly state that such a record either “shall not be a public record,” “shall be kept confidential” or “shall not be subject to the disclosure provision of the Public Records Law.” The second category under the exemption includes records deemed exempt under statute by necessary implication. Such statutes expressly limit the dissemination of particular records to a defined group of individuals or entities. A statute is not a basis for exemption if it merely lists individuals or entities to whom the records are to be provided; the statute must expressly limit access to the listed individuals or entities.

Robert Sibilio SPR22/2262 Page 3 October 20, 2022 Criminal Offender Record Information The current definition of CORI is as follows: “Criminal offender record information,” records and data in any communicable form compiled by a Massachusetts criminal justice agency which concern an identifiable individual and relate to the nature or disposition of a criminal charge, an arrest, a pre-trial proceeding, other judicial proceedings, previous hearings conducted pursuant to section 58A of chapter 276 where the defendant was detained prior to trial or released with conditions under subsection (2) of section 58A of chapter 276, sentencing, incarceration, rehabilitation, or release. Such information shall be restricted to information recorded in criminal proceedings that are not dismissed before arraignment. Criminal offender record information shall not include evaluative information, statistical and analytical reports and files in which individuals are not directly or indirectly identifiable, or intelligence information. Criminal offender record information shall be limited to information concerning persons who have attained the age of 18 and shall not include any information concerning criminal offenses or acts of delinquency committed by any person before he attained the age of 18; provided, however, that if a person under the age of 18 was adjudicated as an adult in superior court or adjudicated as an adult after transfer of a case from a juvenile session to another trial court department, information relating to such criminal offense shall be criminal offender record information. Criminal offender record information shall not include information concerning any offenses which are not punishable by incarceration. G. L. c. 6, § 167. In its response the Department states the following: As it pertains to Exemption A, CORI information, I redacted criminal charges and information pertaining to court proceedings. This incident has not been adjudicated as of this request. To release such information prior to court proceedings being held could unfairly prejudice the rights of the person charged and could negatively affect the ability to successfully prosecute the charges. Based on the Department’s response, I find the Department has not met its burden of specificity to explain how the redacted information falls within the definition of CORI. Specifically, it is unclear how the redacted portion constitutes “information recorded in criminal proceedings that are not dismissed before arraignment,” as described above. The Department must address this matter.

Robert Sibilio SPR22/2262 Page 4 October 20, 2022 Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Attorney Labanara with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations 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: Brendan Labanara, Esq.