Boston Accountability Network v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20241883)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 11, 2024 SPR24/1883 Shawn A Williams, Esq. Record Access Officer City of Boston One City Hall Square Boston, MA 02201 Dear Attorney Williams: I have received the petition of Boston Accountability Network (“requestor”) 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 June 11, 2024, the requestor sought records related to “a purported incident that occurred involving Boston Police Officer . . . sometime between May 31, 2024 and June 03, 2024… We are requesting any [and] all reports, body camera footage, radio traffic, and investigative documentation related to this incident… Additionally, we are requesting copies of any and all disciplinary actions that have been implemented by the Boston Police Department. We also request any communications regarding this incident using any city resources…” The City provided a response on June 27, 2024, denying the request and claiming the responsive records are exempt from disclosure under Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). Unsatisfied with the City’s response, the requestor petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/1883, 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. 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. SPR24/1883 Page 2 July 11, 2024 Att’y 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 City’s June 27th Response In its June 27, 2024 response, the City states that it has withheld certain records pursuant to Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). The City cited G. L. c. 41, § 97D as the basis for withholding the requested records. Exemption (a) Exemption (a), known as the statutory exemption, permits the withholding of records that are: specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). A governmental entity may use the statutory exemption as a basis for withholding requested materials where the language of the exempting statute relied upon expressly or necessarily implies that the public’s right to inspect records under the Public Records Law is restricted. See Att’y Gen. v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 54 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-46 (1977). This exemption creates two categories of exempt records. The first category includes records that are specifically exempt from disclosure by statute. Such statutes expressly state that such a record either “shall not be a public record,” “shall be kept confidential” or “shall not be subject to the disclosure provision of the Public Records Law.” The second category under the exemption includes records deemed exempt under statute by necessary implication. Such statutes expressly limit the dissemination of particular records to a defined group of individuals or entities. A statute is not a basis for exemption if it merely lists individuals or entities to whom the records are to be provided; the statute must expressly limit access to the listed individuals or entities. In its response, the City cites G. L. c. 41, § 97D, which provides in relevant part: All reports of rape and sexual assault or attempts to commit such offenses, all

Shawn A. Williams, Esq. SPR24/1883 Page 3 July 11, 2024 reports of abuse perpetrated by family or household members, as defined in section 1 of chapter 209A, and all communications between police officers and victims of such offenses or abuse shall not be public reports and shall be maintained by the police departments in a manner that shall assure their confidentiality; provided, however, that all such reports shall be accessible at all reasonable times, upon written request, to: (i) the victim, the victim’s attorney, others specifically authorized by the victim to obtain such information, prosecutors and (ii) victim-witness advocates as defined in section 1 of chapter 258B, domestic violence victims’ counselors as defined in section 20K of chapter 233, sexual assault counselors as defined in section 20J of chapter 233, if such access is necessary in the performance of their duties; and provided further, that all such reports shall be accessible at all reasonable times, upon written, telephonic, facsimile or electronic mail request to law enforcement officers, district attorneys or assistant district attorneys and all persons authorized to admit persons to bail pursuant to section 57 of chapter 276… G. L. c. 41, § 97D. In its response, the City asserts, “any and all reports of sexual assault and domestic violence are not deemed public and are protected by the Department in a manner that assures their confidentiality…” Based on the City’s June 27th response, it is unclear what records the City intends to withhold from disclosure. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a 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”); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3)(c)(4). Further, it is uncertain how the withheld records fall within the type of records contemplated under G. L. c. 41, § 97D. A records custodian is required to not only cite an exemption, but to specifically explain the applicability of the exemption to the requested records in order to comply with the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv). The City must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide the requestor with a response to the 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.

Shawn A. Williams, Esq. SPR24/1883 Page 4 July 11, 2024 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Boston Accountability Network