Good Citizen v. Holyoke, City of - Police Department (SPR 20250200)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 3, 2025 SPR25/0200 Officer Caron L. Porter Records Access Officer Holyoke Police Department 138 Appleton Street Holyoke, MA 01040 Dear Officer Porter: I have received the petition of Good Citizen (requestor) appealing the response of the Holyoke 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 January 16, 2025, the requestor sought, “[p]olice report for OUI arrest on 11/14/2024 at 1:29 PM at [a specified address] for [an identified individual].” The Department provided a response on January 16, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, the requestor petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0200, 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 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

Officer Caron L. Porter SPR25/0200 Page 2 February 3, 2025 custodian must provide the responsive records. The Department’s January 16th response In its January 16, 2025 response, the Department cited Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested record in its entirety. Current appeal In its appeal the requestor asserts, “I am asking you to reverse this decision as, in my opinion, there is no possible way that a police report can be withheld when I already know the identity of the suspect. I know the identity because I was furnished with the daily arrest logs which contain the name and crime committed.” 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, 154 (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 Department cited the Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) statute. The current definition of CORI is as follows: Criminal offender record information,” records and data in any communicable form compiled by a Massachusetts criminal justice agency which concern an

Officer Caron L. Porter SPR25/0200 Page 3 February 3, 2025 identifiable individual and relate to the nature or disposition of a criminal charge, an arrest, a pre-trial proceeding, other judicial proceedings, previous hearings conducted pursuant to section 58A of chapter 276 where the defendant was detained prior to trial or released with conditions under subsection (2) of section 58A of chapter 276, sentencing, incarceration, rehabilitation, or release. Such information shall be restricted to information recorded in criminal proceedings that are not dismissed before arraignment. Criminal offender record information shall not include evaluative information, statistical and analytical reports and files in which individuals are not directly or indirectly identifiable, or intelligence information. Criminal offender record information shall be limited to information concerning persons who have attained the age of 18 and shall not include any information concerning criminal offenses or acts of delinquency committed by any person before he attained the age of 18; provided, however, that if a person under the age of 18 was adjudicated as an adult in superior court or adjudicated as an adult after transfer of a case from a juvenile session to another trial court department, information relating to such criminal offense shall be criminal offender record information. . . . G. L. c. 6, § 167. Under Exemption (a), the Department recited portions of the statute. The statute, G. L. c. 6, § 167, referenced by the Department regards dissemination of criminal offender record information. Upon review, it is unclear how the Department is permitted to withhold the requested record. Specifically, based upon the Department’s response, the Department has not met its burden to show that the record falls within the CORI Act. The Department has not demonstrated that the withheld record constitutes “information recorded in criminal proceedings that are not dismissed before arraignment” as defined in G. L. c. 6, § 167. Therefore, the Department may not withhold the record under Exemption (a). Further, it is uncertain whether segregable poritons 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). The Department must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department 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 (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. The requestor may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Officer Caron L. Porter SPR25/0200 Page 4 February 3, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Good Citizen