Katherine Romano v. Halifax, Town of (SPR 20230795)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 4, 2023 SPR23/0795 Antoinette Tripolone-Ross Records Access Officer Halifax Police Department 540 Plymouth Street Halifax, MA 02338 Dear Ms. Tripolone-Ross: I have received the petition of Katherine Romano appealing the response of the Halifax Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On April 17, 2023, Ms. Romano requested a copy of a specific police report. The Department provided a response on April 18, 2023. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. Romano petitioned this office and SPR23/0795 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 Department’s April 18th response In its April 18, 2023 response, the Department cited Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested 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

Antoinette Tripolone-Ross SPR23/0795 Page 2 May 4, 2023 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 stated the following: The record(s) requested contain investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of the public view by law enforcement, 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. Based on the Department’s response, it is 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). Further, it is unclear why the Department cannot redact where necessary to preserve confidentiality and provide the remaining portions of the record. See Antell, 52 Mass. App. Ct. at 248. The Department must clarify these matters. As a result, I find that the Department did not satisfy its burden in responding to this records request. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Romano with a response to her request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its

Antoinette Tripolone-Ross SPR23/0795 Page 3 May 4, 2023 Regulations within ten 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. Ms. Romano may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within 90 calendar days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Katherine Romano