Kristina Rex v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20233121)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 11, 2024 SPR23/3121 Shawn A. Williams, Esq. Director of Public Records Records Access Officer City of Boston One City Hall Square Boston, MA 02201 Dear Attorney Williams: I have received the petition of Kristina Rex, of CBS News Boston, appealing the response of the City of Boston (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 8, 2023, Ms. Rex requested, “[a]ny & all police reports, interview transcripts, video recordings, crime scene photos, and additional data connected to the investigation into fetuses and/or babies found in the freezer of an apartment at [an identified address] in South Boston. If this is an ongoing investigation that would prevent the disclosure of such records, WBZ-TV kindly requests a detailed explanation for investigative delays.” Prior appeal The requested records were the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR23/2823 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 6, 2023). The City responded on December 21, 2023. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Rex petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR23/3121, 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 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

Shawn A. Williams, Esq. SPR23/3121 Page 2 January 11, 2024 order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(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…”); 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). 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 City’s December 21st response In its December 21, 2023 response, the City claimed 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 289-90. 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

Shawn A. Williams, Esq. SPR23/3121 Page 3 January 11, 2024 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 City stated, “BPD stands by its previous response.” In the City’s prior response dated November 10, 2023, the City asserted, “[a]ny release of the requested materials would be harmful to the open investigation detectives are currently conducting. As such, this request is denied at this time under the investigatory exemption to the public records law. You may file a new request at a later date to determine whether the conditions regarding the status of this matter have changed, and a new response will be provided at that time ...” Although the City claims that there is an ongoing investigation regarding the requested records, it remains unclear how the records, in their entirety, can be withheld under Exemption (f). It is unclear from the City’s response whether the records contain confidential investigative techniques that would be prejudicial to the ongoing investigation if disclosed. Further, the city did not demonstrate how disclosure of any portion of the responsive records “would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest[,]” as required under Exemption (f). See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90 (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). Further, although the City has stated that release of the requested materials would be harmful to the open investigation, the City has not provided information supporting this statement. In addition, I find the City must identify the records in its possession that are responsive to the request. To deny access to a record or portion of a record under the Public Records Law, a records access officer must identify the record, categories of records, or portions of the record it intends to withhold. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3)(c)(4). See SPR23/2823. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Ms. Rex 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 the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Ms. Rex may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Shawn A. Williams, Esq. SPR23/3121 Page 4 January 11, 2024 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Kristina Rex