J. Edward Raymond v. Quincy, City of - Police Department (SPR 20231477)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 12, 2023 SPR23/1477 Lieutenant Terence McDonnell Inspector of Divisions Quincy Police Department 1 Sea Street Quincy, MA 02169 Dear Lieutenant McDonnell: I have received the petition of J. Edward Raymond appealing the response of the Quincy 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 May 31, 2023, Mr. Raymond requested the following records: [1.] All correspondence between Quincy Police Department and the ‘outside agency’ conducting an ‘external review’ of motor vehicle crash involving [an identified individual] on September 6, 2021. [2.] A copy of ‘external review by an outside agency’ report into the motor vehicle crash involving [an identified individual] on September 6, 2021. [3.] A copy of the investigation report into motor vehicle crash involving [an identified individual] on September 6, 2021. [4.] All cruiser dash camera and officer body work camera recordings from response to motor vehicle crash involving [an identified individual] on September 6, 2021. The Department provided a response on June 14, 2023. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Raymond petitioned this office and SPR23/1477, 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 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

Lieutenant Terence McDonnell SPR23/1108 Page 2 July 12, 2023 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 June 14th response In its June 14, 2023 response, the Department cited Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law 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 stated the following: With respect to your request, the Department intends to withhold these records due to the applicability of the following exemption and the reason set forth below:

Lieutenant Terence McDonnell SPR23/1108 Page 3 July 12, 2023 Exemption (f): This exemption applies to ‘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.’ While this exemption is not a blanket exemption, it applies to such information, the disclosure of which would prejudice investigatory efforts. In particular, it applies to information related to ongoing investigations, confidential investigative techniques and information which directly or indirectly identifies witnesses or informants. Specifically, given that this matter is currently being investigated by an outside agency, the release of such material would constitute an undue risk to the investigation. As a result, such information must be withheld under the law. 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. Further, based on the Department’s response, it is unclear what type of records it possesses that it is withholding from disclosure. 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 . . .”). Therefore, the Department must identify the type of records it has in its possession that it is withholding under Exemption (f). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Raymond with a response to his request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its 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. Mr. Raymond 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: J. Edward Raymond