MA Public Records Search
← Back to Search

Maggie Mulvihill v. Attorney General's Office (SPR 20230035)

Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Petitioner won — agency ordered to comply within 10 days · Filed 01-09-2023

ClosedAppealPetitioner Won

SPR 20230035 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Maggie Mulvihill concerning records held by Attorney General's Office, opened 01-09-2023. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Petitioner won — agency ordered to comply within 10 days.

Case Details

Case Number
20230035
Case Type
Appeal
Case Subtype
Initial
Status
Closed
Requester
Maggie Mulvihill
Custodian
Attorney General's Office
Date Opened
01-09-2023
Date Closed
01-23-2023
Date Request Submitted
10-24-2022

PDF Document

Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 23, 2023 SPR23/0035 Lorraine A.G. Tarrow, Esq. Records Access Officer Office of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place, 20th Floor Boston, MA 02108 Dear Attorney Tarrow: I have received the petition of Maggie Mulvihill appealing the response of the Office of the Attorney General (AGO) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On October 24, 2022, Ms. Mulvihill requested, “[a]ll records related to the New Boston Pride Committee, Attorney General number…” The AGO responded on November 21, 2022. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Mulvihill petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR23/0035, 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. The AGO’s November 21st response In its November 21, 2022 response, the AGO withheld the requested records pursuant to 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

Lorraine A.G. Tarrow, Esq. SPR23/0035 Page 2 January 23, 2023 Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. 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. As a matter of course, witness provided information is essential to efficient and effective law enforcement. This exemption is intended to allow investigative officials to provide an assurance of confidentiality to private citizens so that they will speak openly and voluntarily about matters. Bougas, 371 Mass at 62. Any information contained in a witness statement, which if disclosed would create a grave risk of directly or indirectly identifying the voluntary witness is subject to withholding Globe Newspaper Co., 388 Mass. at 438. The disclosure of the names and other identifying information of victims, complainants and voluntary witnesses may deter other potential witnesses and citizens from providing information to law enforcement agencies in future investigations. Therefore, Exemption (f) will allow the withholding of the name and identifying details of any victims, complainants and voluntary witnesses, and where the individuals can be indirectly identified even with redaction. In its response, the AGO advised, “… we have identified a small volume of records concerning the dissolution of the New Boston Pride Committee that may be responsive to your request. However, we are withholding them in accordance with G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26(f), insofar as they constitute materials related to a pending matter under review that reveal the nature and course of our review and divulge legal and other strategies and sources of information that, if disclosed, would cause a chilling effect on the cooperation of both the complainants and the entity. We note that because the exempt information is so interwoven within the text of these

Lorraine A.G. Tarrow, Esq. SPR23/0035 Page 3 January 23, 2023 records, proper redaction would render them meaningless and therefore, withholding them in their entirety is appropriate in this instance.” The AGO’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). Conclusion Accordingly, the AGO is to provide Ms. Mulvihill with a response to the request in a manner consistent with 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 the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Maggie Mulvihill