Enide Florestal v. Randolph, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20251032)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 25, 2025 SPR25/1032 Christine R. Morse Lieutenant Randolph Police Department 41 South Main Street Randolph, MA 02368 Dear Lieutenant Morse: I have received the petition of Enide Florestal, on behalf of Judy Heller, Esq., appealing the response of the Randolph 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 December 4, 2024, Attorney Heller requested body camera footage relating to a specific incident. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR25/0152 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 17, 2025) and SPR25/0441 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 20, 2025). In my February 20th determination, I found that the Department had not met its burden to withhold responsive records, in their entirety, under Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. The Department provided a response on April 10, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Florestal petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1032, 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). 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

Christine R. Morse SPR25/1032 Page 2 April 25, 2025 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 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. 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). Therefore, Ms. Florestal’s reasons for seeking the responsive records have no bearing on the public status of any existing responsive records. The Department’s April 10th Response In its April 10, 2025 response, the Department provided Ms. Florestal with responsive records, redacted pursuant to Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. Current Appeal In her April 15, 2025 petition to this office, Ms. Florestal sought complete, unredacted versions of the responsive records. Ms. Florestal further raised concerns regarding the actions of Department officers and potential violations of civil rights. Ms. Florestal is advised that under the Public Records Law, the Supervisor of Records is not empowered to investigate allegations of law enforcement misconduct or the violation of civil rights. To the extent Ms. Florestal believes actionable wrongdoing has occurred, she may wish to seek advice from private legal counsel. 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).

Christine R. Morse SPR25/1032 Page 3 April 25, 2025 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, 54 (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. G. L. c. 41, § 97D In its response, the Department relies upon G. L. c. 41, § 97D, which provides in pertinent part: All reports of rape and sexual assault or attempts to commit such offenses, all reports of abuse perpetrated by family or household members, as defined in section 1 of chapter 209A, and all communications between police officers and victims of such offenses or abuse shall not be public reports and shall be maintained by the police departments in a manner that shall assure their confidentiality; provided, however, that all such reports shall be accessible at all reasonable times, upon written request, to: (i) the victim, the victim’s attorney, others specifically authorized by the victim to obtain such information, prosecutors and (ii) victim-witness advocates ... G. L. c. 41, § 97D. In its response, the Department states: After consultation with the Town of Randolph attorney and after reviewing the above response and conclusion from the Supervisor of Records the reason for video and audio either being redacted or withheld has been determined as follows: [1] BWC of [an identified individual] 6 min 11 sec - communication with the juvenile victim has been redacted; communication with a witness regarding the domestic situation has been redacted; identity of juvenile has been redacted; identity of juvenile witness has been redacted[;]

Christine R. Morse SPR25/1032 Page 4 April 25, 2025 [2] BWC of [an identified individual] 6 min 04 sec - this entire video is withheld due to the entire video containing communication with a juvenile witness as well as the juvenile victim[;] [3] BWC of [an identified individual] 1 min 34 sec - communication regarding details of the domestic incident have been redacted[;] [4] BWC of [an identified individual] 10 min 30 sec - communication regarding details of the domestic incident have been redacted; communication regarding details of the interfering with the domestic arrest have been redacted; communication regarding victim and with victim have been redacted; minute 7 and second 41 through last 11 seconds of video has been withheld due to the video containing communication with a juvenile witness as well as the juvenile victim; remainder of video, 11 seconds show as separate video, but was part of this video and is not redacted[;] [5] BWC of [an identified individual] 29 min 33 sec - communication regarding details of juvenile victim have been redacted; communication regarding details of the domestic incident have been redacted; communication regarding details of the interfering with the domestic arrest have been redacted; name and date of birth of the juvenile victim have been redacted; communication with a witness regarding domestic incident has been redacted; communication with the juvenile victim has been redacted; identity of juvenile witness and juvenile victim have been redacted[;] [6] BWC of [an identified individual] 38 min 37 sec - communication with the juvenile victim have been redacted; communication regarding the juvenile victim have been redacted; communication regarding details of the domestic violence incident have been redacted; communication regarding details of the interfering with the domestic violence arrest have been redacted; identity of juvenile victim has been redacted; identity of juvenile witness has been redacted; name and date of birth of the juvenile victim have been redacted. In Camera Inspection In order to facilitate a determination as to the applicability of the Exemption (a) claims made by the Department to redact the responsive records, the Department must provide this office with un-redacted copies of the responsive records for in camera inspection. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4). After I complete my review of the records, I will return the records to the Department’s custody and issue an opinion on the public or exempt nature of the records. The authority to require the submission of records for an in camera inspection emanates from the Code of Massachusetts Regulations. 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4); see also G. L. c. 66, § 1. This office interprets the in camera inspection process to be analogous to that utilized by the judicial system. See Rock v. Mass. Comm’n Against Discrimination, 384 Mass. 198, 206 (1981)

Christine R. Morse SPR25/1032 Page 5 April 25, 2025 (administrative agency entitled deference in the interpretation of its own regulations). Records are not voluntarily submitted, but rather are submitted pursuant to an order by this office that an in camera inspection is necessary to make a proper finding. Records are submitted for the limited purpose of review. This office is not the custodian of records examined in camera, therefore, any request made to this office for records being reviewed in camera will be denied. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4)(c). This office has a long history of cooperation with governmental agencies with respect to in camera inspection. Custodians submit copies of the relevant records to this office upon a promise of confidentiality. This office does not release records reviewed in camera to anyone under any circumstances. Upon a determination of the public record status, records reviewed in camera are promptly returned to the custodian. To operate in any other fashion would seriously impede our ability to function and would certainly affect our credibility within the legal community. Please be aware, any cover letter submitted to accompany the relevant records may be subject to disclosure. Order Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide this office with un-redacted copies of the responsive records for in camera inspection without delay. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Enide Florestal