Kyle Bryant v. Suffolk County District Attorney's Office (SPR 20231021)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 26, 2023 SPR23/1021 Andrew Doherty, Esq. Assistant District Attorney Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office One Bulfinch Street Boston, MA 02114 Dear Attorney Doherty: I have received the petition of Kyle Bryant appealing the response of the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office (Office) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 31, 2022, Mr. Bryant requested the following regarding a named case: [1] Paper #7: Defendant motion to suppress any and all statements with affidavit of the defendant in support thereof (09/08/2005) [2] Paper #12: Defendant motion to amend motion to suppress any and all statements (12/12/2005) [3] Paper # 13: Defendant memorandum in support of motion to suppress statements. Prior Appeal The requested records were the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR23/0265 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 7, 2023). In my March 7th determination I found that the Office provided a further response on February 14, 2023, and closed the appeal. Unsatisfied with the Office’s February 14th response, Mr. Bryant petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR23/1021, 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 town of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). 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

Andrew Doherty, Esq. SPR23/1021 Page 2 May 26, 2023 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. Current Appeal In its February 14, 2023 response, the Office states the following: Without confirming the existence of the documents you seek (or, for that matter, any criminal proceedings against [named person]), your request is for records concerning an identifiable individual and relating to the disposition of a criminal charge. Accordingly, disclosure of information from this case is restricted by the CORI Act as it operates through 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 Attorney Gen. v. Collector of Lynn, 3 77 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.

Andrew Doherty, Esq. SPR23/1021 Page 3 May 26, 2023 CORI 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 the Office’s February 14th response it stated the following: G. L. c. 6, § 172. CORI is defined as “records and data in nay communicable form complied by a criminal justice agency which concern an identifiable individual and relate to the nature or disposition of a criminal charge, arrest…sentencing, incarceration, or release.” G. L. c. 6, § 167. Due to previously stated restrictions, my office is unable to fulfill your request for copies of the documents listed above. Pursuant to the Public Records Law, the burden shall be upon the records custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based . . .”); see also Globe Newspaper ----------------- Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511.

Andrew Doherty, Esq. SPR23/1021 Page 4 May 26, 2023 Based on the Office’s response, I find it has not met its burden of specificity in claiming the CORI Act, operating through Exemption (a), to withhold the requested records in their entirety. The Office merely cites the CORI Act without any further explanation as to its applicability to the responsive records. The Office is advised that a records custodian is required to not only cite an exemption, but to specifically explain the applicability of the exemption to the requested records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). Conclusion Accordingly, the Office is ordered to provide Mr. Bryant with a response in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten (10) business days. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of this response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Mr. Bryant may appeal the substantive nature of the Office’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Kyle Bryant