Emma Rindlisbacher v. Taunton, City of - Police Department (SPR 20250008)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 10, 2025 SPR25/0008 Lieutenant John P. Joyce Public Records Access Officer Taunton Police Department 23 Summer Street Taunton, MA 02780 Dear Lieutenant Joyce: I have received the petition of Emma Rindlisbacher 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 November 25, 2024, Ms. Rindlisbacher requested “all police records related to motor vehicle crashes on November 20, 2024… The police and/or crash report for the pedestrian hit by the car that day.” The Department responded on November 29, 2024, withholding records. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Rindlisbacher petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/0008, 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 SPR25/0008 Page 2 January 10, 2025 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 November 29th Response In its November 29, 2024 response, the Department cited Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold records responsive to the request. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Rindlisbacher states that “I do not believe that these exemptions are applicable.” 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 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. 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. Id. 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. 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

Lieutenant John P. Joyce SPR25/0008 Page 3 January 10, 2025 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. Under Exemption (f), the Department states, “. . . [t]he Department intends to withhold the above-referenced requested records due to the applicability of [Exemption (f)]. . . .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. The investigation into this crash is active and ongoing and as a result any records are not subject to disclosure. The crash is the subject of a crash reconstruction investigation, which is both intricate and lengthy in time.” 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 Ms. Rindlisbacher 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 the 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. Ms. Rindlisbacher may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Lieutenant John P. Joyce SPR25/0008 Page 4 January 10, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Emma Rindlisbacher