Faith Imafidon v. Woburn, City of - Police Department (SPR 20243102)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 2, 2024 SPR24/3102 Robert Rufo Chief of Police Woburn Police Department 25 Harrison Avenue Woburn, MA 01801 Dear Chief Rufo: I have received the petition of Faith Imafidon appealing the response of the Woburn 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 25, 2024, Ms. Imafidon requested, “[i]ncident reports and/or documentation connected to the 8/16/16 homicide of [an identified individual] in Woburn.” The Department provided a response on October 29, 2024. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. Imafidon petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/3102, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the Department provided a supplemental response on November 25, 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, § 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. 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 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

Chief Robert Rufo SPR24/3102 Page 2 December 2, 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 October 29, 2024 response, the Department cited Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested records in their entirety, “as the untimely and unfortunate death of [an identified individual] has never been ruled a homicide, it is still an open and unsolved death investigation.” In its supplemental response on November 25, 2024, a representative of the Department further advised the following: Ms. Imafidon requested records in regards to [an identified individual] who was an infant child at the time of his death. This investigation continues to be an active investigation and due to the circumstances surrounding it, a very sensitive investigation. . . . The [identified] . . . investigatory file contains an abundance of evidentiary information and witness statements that have no public interest. The release of such information would jeopardize our ability to investigate further and if released will create a grave risk of directly, or indirectly, identifying private citizen witnesses. This investigation is in conjunction with the Middlesex District Attorneys [sic] office and the Woburn Police Department. It has not been classified a Homicide by either authority and the death investigation is still active and ongoing. Current Appeal In her appeal, Ms. Imafidon states, “I respectfully disagree with [the Department’s] determination. . . . Exemption F, the investigative exemption is not a blanket exemption.” 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

Chief Robert Rufo SPR24/3102 Page 3 December 2, 2024 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 289-90. As a matter of course, witness provided information is essential to efficient and effective law enforcement. This exemption is intended to allow investigative officials to provide an assurance of confidentiality to private citizens so that they will speak openly and voluntarily about matters. Bougas, 371 Mass at 62. Any information contained in a witness statement, which if disclosed would create a grave risk of directly or indirectly identifying the voluntary witness is subject to withholding. See Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Ret. Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 438 (1983). The disclosure of the names and other identifying information of victims, complainants and voluntary witnesses may deter other potential witnesses and citizens from providing information to law enforcement agencies in future investigations. Therefore, Exemption (f) will allow the withholding of the name and identifying details of any victims, complainants and voluntary witnesses, and where the individuals can be indirectly identified even with redaction. Upon review, the Department does not describe how the release of the witness statements would reveal confidential investigative techniques that are unique to the Department nor how disclosure would interfere with the investigation. It is also uncertain how disclosure “would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest” as required by Exemption (f). Further, it is unclear why the Department cannot redact where necessary to preserve confidentiality and provide the remaining portions of the records. See Antell, 52 Mass. App. Ct. at 248; see also 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). Additionally, it is unclear which specific records the Department intends to withhold. To deny access to a record under the Public Records Law, a records access officer must identify the record, categories of records, or portions of the record it intends to withhold. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3)(c)(4). Here, the Department withheld responsive records without identifying which records those are. Therefore, the Department must identify the record(s) it has in its possession that it withheld under Exemption (f). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Imafidon 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

Chief Robert Rufo SPR24/3102 Page 4 December 2, 2024 office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Faith Imafidon