Claudia Larios v. Lawrence, City of - Police Department (SPR 20250894)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 14, 2025 SPR25/0894 Sergeant Mark Panagiotakos Keeper of Records Lawrence Police Department 90 Lowell Street Lawrence, MA 01840 Dear Sergeant Panagiotakos: I have received the petition of Claudia Larios, Esq., of the Committee for Public Counsel Services, appealing the response of the Lawrence 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 March 12, 2025, Attorney Larios requested, “all CAD Incident Reports from April 29, 2024, to August 1, 2024, where [an identified] Officer . . . is listed under Officers and Units.” The Department responded on March 31, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Attorney Larios petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0894, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the Department provided a supplemental response on April 2, 2025. 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

Sergeant Mark Panagiotakos SPR25/0894 Page 2 April 14, 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. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Attorney Larios contests the Department’s claim of Exemption (f) in denying her request. Specifically, she states the following: While this exemption was cited as justification for non-disclosure, the responding officer further elaborated that the reason for denying my request is because “CAD does not differentiate between what cases are still open and what are closed.” This admission makes it clear that the refusal to disclose records is not based on a legitimate exemption analysis but rather on an unwillingness to conduct the required review to determine what can be disclosed. . . . The Lawrence Police Department’s refusal to review the requested records to determine whether a valid exemption applies is legally and procedurally improper. The Department’s Responses In its March 31, 2025 response, the Department cited Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested records in their entirety. Subsequently, in an email to this office and Attorney Larios dated April 2, 2025, a representative for the Department further advised the following: In response to Appeal SPR25-0894. The Lawrence Police Department stands by its response citing these records exempt from release in accordance with the following statute. (G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f). [D]ocuments attached to an open case and protected from release as materials pertaining to on-going investigations or prosecutions in accordance with the following statute. (G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f). Two known cases: [1] CAD response 24025976 is attached to an open case in Lawrence District Court Dkt # 2418CR002689. [2] CAD response 24029441 is attached to an open case in Lawrence District Court Dkt # 2418CR002370[.] 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:

Sergeant Mark Panagiotakos SPR25/0894 Page 3 April 14, 2025 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. In light of information provided in the Department’s April 2, 2025 response, as described above, it is unclear whether there is active litigation concerning the requested records. Specifically, although the Department has provided docket numbers referring to possible criminal litigation related to the responsive records, based on this office’s review of the trial court’s docket, it is not clear whether the litigation remains active and ongoing. See Commonwealth vs. Guerrero Sanquintin, Andoni (Lawrence District Court Docket No. 2418CR002689) and Commonwealth vs. Medina, Hector (Lawrence District Court Docket No. 2418CR002370). Accordingly, I will proceed to address the Department’s claims under Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law in withholding the responsive records. 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.” See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90. Under Exemption (f), the Department argues the following in its March 31, 2025 response: In response to your records request from the Lawrence Police Department pursuant to 2025-FOIA-326. Our CAD does not differentiate between what cases are still open and what are closed. Therefore we deem these records exempt from release in accordance with the following statute. (G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f). documentsattached [sic] to an open case and protected from release as materials

Sergeant Mark Panagiotakos SPR25/0894 Page 4 April 14, 2025 pertaining to on-going investigations or prosecutions in accordance with the following statute. (G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f). Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear how the records, in their entirety, can be withheld under Exemption (f). The Department’s response does not indicate whether there is an ongoing investigation nor does it describe how the requested records are part of the investigation. It is additionally uncertain from the Department’s response whether the record contains 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 record “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). It is additionally uncertain from the Department’s response what types of records it possesses that it is withholding from disclosure. 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 each of the records. Therefore, the Department must identify the records it has in its possession that it withheld under Exemption (f). The Department must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Attorney Larios with a response to her 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. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Claudia Larios, Esq.