MA Public Records Search
← Back to Search

Dan Griffin v. Department of State Police (SPR 20241731)

Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records · Filed 06-10-2024

ClosedAppealPetitioner Won

SPR 20241731 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Dan Griffin concerning records held by Department of State Police, opened 06-10-2024. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records.

Case Details

Case Number
20241731
Case Type
Appeal
Case Subtype
Initial
Status
Closed
Requester
Dan Griffin
Custodian
Department of State Police
Date Opened
06-10-2024
Date Closed
06-24-2024
Response Provided Date
07-08-2024
Processing Fees Charged
0.00
Petitions Regarding Fees
No
Time to Comply
9 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 June 24, 2024 SPR24/1731 Allison Mondello Records Access Officer Massachusetts Department of State Police 470 Worcester Road Framingham, MA 01702 Dear Ms. Mondello: I have received the petition of Dan Griffin appealing the response of the Department of State Police (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On March 28, 2024, Mr. Griffin requested a “copy of any and all investigations that were conducted in conjunction with my employment from 1986‐ my retirement on September 2020.” The Department provided a response on May 8, 2024. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Griffin petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/1731, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the Department provided a supplemental response on June 11, 2024. 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, § l0A(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 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

Allison Mondello SPR24/1731 Page 2 June 24, 2024 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 responses In its May 8, 2024 response, the Department stated, “[d]ue to the high volume of requests we receive daily, we have not yet had a chance to process your request.” Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, on June 11, 2024, the Department sent a response and cited Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold responsive records. Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Griffin states, “I have requested several records from the [Department] and have received nothing yet.” In response to the Department’s June 11th email, Mr. Griffin states, “I was exonerated (I have the letter) and the case referenced was closed. A subsequent case was opened in 2019, so please send me the files on the closed 2019 case for which I was exonerated.” Status of the requestor; reason for the request Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Therefore, Mr. Griffins interest in obtaining the records shall have no bearing on the public nature of the record. 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

Allison Mondello SPR24/1731 Page 3 June 24, 2024 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 June 11, 2024 response, under Exemption (f), the Department stated, “after a diligent search of its records systems, the Department has… identified the following responsive records: IAS 2019-0036[.] Please be advised that, according to information provided to this office, this incident remains the subject of an ongoing investigation… Releasing information and records regarding an on-going investigation would detract from effective law enforcement and could prejudice investigative efforts. The Department is compelled to conduct a thorough and objective investigation of the events into this incident. There is an interest in preserving the integrity of the investigation and any potential subsequent prosecution. It is not in the public’s interest to release this information, as such release could potentially taint any potential jury pool if the investigation results in a criminal prosecution.” Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear what type of records it possesses that it withheld 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 records it has in its possession that it is withholding under Exemption (f). Further, although the Department claims it has an open investigation regarding the requested records, it is unclear how the records, in their entirety, can be withheld under Exemption (f). It is additionally uncertain from the Department’s response whether the records contain confidential 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 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). The Department must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Griffin with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within 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.

Allison Mondello SPR24/1731 Page 4 June 24, 2024 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Dan Griffin