Thomas V. Ralph v. Southbridge, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20242925)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 8, 2024 SPR24/2925 Officer Gerald Arvelo Records Access Officer Southbridge Police Department One Mechanic Street Southbridge, MA 01550 Dear Officer Arvelo: I have received the petition of Thomas V. Ralph, Esq., appealing the response of the Southbridge 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 October 8, 2024, Attorney Ralph sought video of a motor vehicle accident which occurred on May 29, 2024. On October 24, 2024, the Department provided a response. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Attorney Ralph petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/2925, 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. 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. 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

Gerald Arvelo SPR24/2925 Page 2 November 8, 2024 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). Accordingly, Attorney Ralph’s status will play no role in a determination as to whether the records should be disclosed or redacted under the Public Records Law. The Department’s October 23rd Response In its October 23, 2024 response, the Department stated: This incident is currently being processed for prosecution through Dudley District Court. As such, records of cases or investigations being investigated, prosecuted or previously adjudicated may be exempt from release as public records under M.G.L. c. 4, § 26(f). All requests for documents and/or evidence related to this incident should be directed to the Office of the District Attorney. 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, 371 Mass at 62. 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.” Id. at 289-90.

Gerald Arvelo SPR24/2925 Page 3 November 8, 2024 Pending Litigation 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. In an email dated October 29, 2024, a representative of the Department advised a staff member of the Public Records Division that a named individual had been “… charged with OUI –Liquor and failure to yield at an intersection in connection with [the subject] incident.” This office has reviewed the trial court’s docket and confirmed that the case is active and ongoing in Dudley District Court. See Commonwealth v. Laurie A. Stately (District Court Docket No. 2464CR002835). In light of the pending litigation, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). It should be noted that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Thomas V. Ralph, Esq.