Jeff Raymond v. Hopkinton, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20231771)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 15, 2023 SPR23/1771 Susan Schuler Records Access Officer Hopkinton Police Department 74 Main Street Hopkinton, MA 01748 Dear Ms. Schuler: I have received the petition of Jeff Raymond, of the Bramanville Tribune, appealing the response of the Hopkinton Police Department (Department) to his request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On April 16, 2023, Mr. Raymond requested “any responsive documents and/or communications concerning your municipality’s police department and its compliance with the Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Commission’s duties under Chapter 253 of the Acts of 2020 to create a ‘database listing complaints against police officers,’ as detailed below.” Specifically, Mr. Raymond requested: [1.] A copy of the document your police department sent to the POST Commission, likely sent between November 2021 and June of 2022, providing the information requested by the POST Commission for its “database listing complaints against police officers” planned for May of 2022…. [2.] Copies of any relevant responsive communications between a) your police department and/or your town officials and b) the POST Commission in regard to the database planned for May of 2022 as detailed above and/or compliance with the reporting for said database between the dates of July 1, 2021 and December 31, 2022, broadly construed…. [3.] Copies of any relevant responsive communications within or between a) your police department and b) your municipal administration in regard to this database and/or compliance with this mandate between the dates of July 1, 2021 and December 31, 2022, broadly construed…. [4.] Information concerning “complaints against police officers” issued in the calendar year 2022 and through March 31, 2023, preferably in the same format 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

Susan Schuler SPR23/1771 Page 2 August 15, 2023 used for the information sent to POST between November 2021 and June of 2022 for the earlier-mentioned database…. [5.] A copy of the document your police department sent to the POST Commission as sent to the POST Commission, likely sent between December 1, 2022 and April 9, 2023, to comply with the “2023 POST Commission Disciplinary Records Resubmission.”... [6.] Copies of any relevant responsive communications within or between a) your police department and b) your municipal administration in regard to this database and/or compliance with the “2023 POST Commission Disciplinary Records Resubmission” described above. Previous appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR23/1558 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 19, 2023). In my July 19th determination, I found that the Department did not meet its burden of specificity in responding to the records request. The Department provided a response on July 28, 2023. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Raymond petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR23/1771, 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. 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 July 28th response In its July 28, 2023 response, the Department cited Exemptions (c), (d) and (f) of the

Susan Schuler SPR23/1771 Page 3 August 15, 2023 Public Records Law to withhold the requested records in their entirety. The Department stated the following: Taking into account what you are asking for and the applicable law and regulations, we have concluded that we will withhold said documents on the following grounds; Exemptions Privacy (c) – disclosure of the requested records, particularly internal affairs investigations that terminated with factual conclusions of unsubstantiated, unfounded, or exonerated, would clearly be an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy detrimentally affecting an officer’s reputation and liberty interests and amounting to a due process violation[;] Deliberative Processes (d) – factual conclusions of internal affairs investigations, especially since the passage of police reform, qualify as inter-agency memorandum relating to policy positions along with training plans, supervisory benchmarks, and disciplinary frameworks[;] Investigatory (f) – internal affairs investigations many times involve civilian and police witnesses, the disclosure of which would not be in the public interest, and would chill the participation of those witnesses in the future if their involvement is publicized, which would be contrary to one of the central themes of police reform relative to accountability[.] The Department further provided that: The requested records are potentially relevant and material to the ongoing and active litigation in the Suffolk Superior Court consolidated case entitled Hovsepian, Scott, et al v. Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission (Docket No. 2248CV00906). In these disputes the plaintiffs are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from the past and ongoing actions of the Massachusetts POST Commission. Specifically, and substantively, they are looking to declare some of the actions of the Commission, which includes but is not limited to the certification and recertification of officers, to be invalidated and declared null and void. Certification of officers is intimately tied to officers’ disciplinary records, which is the subject of this public records request. Exemption (c) Exemption (c) permits the withholding of: personnel and medical files or information and any other materials or data relating

Susan Schuler SPR23/1771 Page 4 August 15, 2023 to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; provided, however, that this subclause shall not apply to records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Analysis under Exemption (c) is subjective in nature and requires a balancing of the public’s right to know against the relevant privacy interests at stake. Torres v. Att’y Gen., 391 Mass. 1, 9 (1984); Att’y Gen. v. Assistant Comm’r of Real Prop. Dep’t, 380 Mass. 623, 625 (1980). Therefore, determinations must be made on a case-by-case basis. This exemption does not protect all data relating to specifically named individuals. Rather, there are factors to consider when assessing the weight of the privacy interest at stake: (1) whether disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities; (2) whether the materials sought contain intimate details of a highly personal nature; and (3) whether the same information is available from other sources. See People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280, 292 (2017). The types of personal information which this exemption is designed to protect includes: marital status, paternity, substance abuse, government assistance, family disputes and reputation. Id. at 292 n.13; see also Doe v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 415, 427 (1988) (holding that a motor vehicle licensee has a privacy interest in disclosure of his social security number). This exemption requires a balancing test which provides that where the public interest in obtaining the requested information substantially outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy, the private interest in preventing disclosure must yield. PETA, 477 Mass. at 291. The public has a recognized interest in knowing whether public servants are carrying out their duties in a law-abiding and efficient manner. Id. at 292. Based upon the update to Exemption (c) where the amendment states that this “subclause shall not apply to records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation,” it is unclear how the requested records can be withheld. Exemption (d) Exemption (d) allows the withholding of: inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters relating to policy positions being developed by the agency; but this subclause shall not apply to reasonably completed factual studies or reports on which the development of such policy positions has been or may be based G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(d).

Susan Schuler SPR23/1771 Page 5 August 15, 2023 Exemption (d) is intended to avoid premature release of materials that could taint the deliberative process if disclosed. Its application is limited to recommendations on legal and policy matters found within an ongoing deliberative process. See Babets v. Sec’y of the Exec. Office of Human Servs., 403 Mass. 230, 237 n.8 (1988). Factual reports which are reasonably complete and inferences which can be drawn from factual investigations, even if labeled as opinions or conclusions, are not exempt as deliberative or policy making materials. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(d); see also Envtl. Prot. Agency v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73, 89 (1973) (purely factual matters used in the development of government policy are subject to disclosure). Based on the Department’s response, I find the Department has not established how the records at issue are “inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters” as required by Exemption (d). It is additionally uncertain the deliberative process that is ongoing and how disclosure of the records would taint the ongoing deliberative process. Further, it is not clear if the records contain any factual information that can be segregated from the records. The Department is advised that any information contained in these records that is factual in nature may be subject to disclosure as Exemption (d) does not apply to such information. 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. 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

Susan Schuler SPR23/1771 Page 6 August 15, 2023 record. See Antell, 52 Mass. App. Ct. at 248. Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. See G. L. c. 66, § l0(a); Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-290 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). 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 form disclosure. As a result, I find that the Department did not meet its burden of specificity in claiming Exemptions (c), (d) and (f) to withhold records from disclosure. Please note, with regard to Items 1, 2, and 5 of the request, based on a July 17, 2023 letter from the Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission (POST), new information has come to light in which I find that records responsive to these Items are not related to the pending litigation. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Raymond with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, 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 this response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Mr. Raymond may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jeff Raymond