← Back to Search
Jason Gladstone v. Ayer, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20241379)
Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records · Filed 05-07-2024
ClosedAppealPetitioner Won
SPR 20241379 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Jason Gladstone concerning records held by Ayer, Town of - Police Department, opened 05-07-2024. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records.
Case Details
- Case Number
- 20241379
- Case Type
- Appeal
- Case Subtype
- Initial
- Status
- Closed
- Requester
- Jason Gladstone
- Custodian
- Ayer, Town of - Police Department
- Date Opened
- 05-07-2024
- Date Closed
- 05-21-2024
- Response Provided Date
- 05-31-2024
- Processing Fees Charged
- 0.00
- Petitions Regarding Fees
- No
- Time to Comply
- 7 Business Days
- Went to Court
- No
PDF Document
Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 21, 2024 SPR24/1379 Brian Gill Deputy Chief Ayer Police Department 54 Park Street Ayer, MA 01432 Dear Deputy Chief Gill: I have received the petition of Jason Gladstone appealing the response of the Ayer 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 April 24, 2024, Mr. Gladstone requested, “…a copy of a police [incident] report or reports relative to an incident that occurred on April 18, 2024 at [an identified location].” The Department provided a response on April 24, 2024. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Gladstone petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/1379, 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. See 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. 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 Deputy Chief Brian Gill SPR24/1379 Page 2 May 21, 2024 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 April 24th response In its April 24, 2024 response, the Department responded and cited Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested records. Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Gladstone stated, “[t]here is nothing to investigate…. I need to contact a lawyer and will need the police report as soon as possible.” 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. Under Exemption (f), the Department stated, “… [i]n accordance with the Public Records Access Regulations, M.G.L. Chapter 4, § 7(26)(f) - The Investigatory Exemption, the report is still under open investigation and is not releasable as a public record at this time.” Although the Department claims it has an open investigation regarding the requested record, it is unclear how the record, in its entirety, can be withheld under Exemption (f). It is additionally uncertain from the Department’s response whether the record contain confidential Deputy Chief Brian Gill SPR24/1379 Page 3 May 21, 2024 investigative techniques that would be prejudicial to the ongoing investigation if disclosed. The Department did not provide any supporting information to demonstrate how disclosure of any segregable portion of the responsive record “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). The Department must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Gladstone 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. Mr. Gladstone may appeal the Department’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jason Gladstone