Brian Crandall v. Taunton, City of - Police Department (SPR 20242197)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 15, 2024 SPR24/2197 John P. Joyce Lieutenant Records Access Officer Taunton Police Department 23 Summer Street Taunton, MA 02780 Dear Lieutenant Joyce: I have received the petition of Brian Crandall, of WJAR-TV, appealing the response of the Taunton 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 July 25, 2024, Mr. Crandall requested, “... any and all police records related to calls for service at [a specified address] since January 1 2024, including reports and officer body worn camera recordings.” The Department responded on August 1, 2024. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Crandall petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/2197, 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. 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

Lieutenant John P. Joyce SPR24/2197 Page 2 August 15, 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 August 1st Response In its August 1, 2024 response, the Department identified the records as follows and cited Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law to withhold the records. [1] TPD Report #24-017384 [2] Evidentiary Photos associated with TPD Report #24-017384 [3] Body-worn camera recordings from multiple responding officers to the above referenced call for service, #24-017384. [4] Booking Photos associated with TPD Report #24-017384 [5] Booking Room audio/video associated with TPD Report #24-017384. Current appeal In his appeal, Mr. Crandall asserts, “[i]n appealing the denial, I would argue the alleged perpetrator, [an identified individual] is an elected public official and it is in the public’s interest to see the ... interaction with police officers, given that she has a level of authority over the Police Department.” 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

Lieutenant John P. Joyce SPR24/2197 Page 3 August 15, 2024 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 August 1st response, the Department cited G. L. c. 41, § 97D indicating that the records are exempt from disclosure. G. L. c. 41, § 97D provides in pertinent part: All reports of rape and sexual assault or attempts to commit such offenses, all 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… G. L. c. 41, § 97D. In its response, the Department stated that, “[v]ictim information and persons providing or training in family planning services: In particular, G.L. c. 66, section 10B advises that the home address, telephone number, personal email address or place employment or education of victims of adjudicated crimes, of victims of domestic violence and of persons providing or training in family planning services and the name, home address, telephone number, personal email address or place of employment or education of a family member of any of the foregoing shall not be public records.” Based upon the Department’s response, it is unclear how all the requested records are restricted under G. L. c. 41, § 97D, as it operates through Exemption (a). Further, it is uncertain how all the responsive records are the type contemplated under G. L. c. 41, § 97D. Also, the Department must clarify whether segregable portions can be provided. See Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (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). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Crandall 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. Crandall may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Lieutenant John P. Joyce SPR24/2197 Page 4 August 15, 2024 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Brian Crandall