Mass Accountability Network v. Department of State Police (SPR 20251152)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 8, 2025 SPR25/1152 Allison Mondello Public Records Manager Office of the Chief Legal Counsel Massachusetts Department of State Police 50 Maple Street Milford, MA 01757 Dear Ms. Mondello: I have received the petition of Mass Accountability Network (requestor) appealing the response of the Department of State Police (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 18, 2024, the requestor sought all documents related to Report 2023-106-647/1. Previous Appeals and In Camera Review This request was the subject of previous appeals and an in camera review. See SPR25/0459 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 25, 2025) and SPR25/0559 Determinations of the Supervisor of Records (March 3, 2025 and March 18, 2025). In my March 18th determination, I found that the Department had met its burden to redact the identifying information of voluntary witnesses pursuant to Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law, but not to redact the location of the subject incident, nor the personal information of the individual identified as a suspect in said incident. The Department responded on April 18, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, the requestor petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1152, 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 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

Allison Mondello SPR25/1152 Page 2 May 8, 2025 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 custodian must provide the responsive records. The Department’s April 18th Response In its April 18, 2025 response, the Department provided the requestor with copies of the responsive records, redacted pursuant to Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. The Department stated that its redactions were made to preserve the anonymity of voluntary witnesses. Specifically, the Department stated: G. L. c. 4, §7, cl. 26 (f) exempts from public disclosure 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. See Reinstein v. Boston Police Comms, 378 Mass. 281, 291 n. 18 (1979)(“Redactions may be appropriate where they serve to preserve the anonymity of voluntary witnesses”). . . .“Even materials relating to an inactive investigation may require confidentiality in order to convince citizens that they may safely confide in law enforcement officials.” Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm. of Boston, 419 Mass. 852, 862-63 (1995) citing Bougas v. Chief of Police, 371 Mass. 59, 63 (1976). The Appeals Court has stated that “[c]oncerns as to confidentiality and promotion of candor are protected … by the privacy and investigatory exemptions.” Worcester T&G v. Chief of Police of Worcester, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 608 n.8 (2003). Current Appeal In the April 25, 2025 petition to this office, the requestor objected to the Department’s redactions as unlawful. Exemption (f) Exemption (f) permits the withholding of:

Allison Mondello SPR25/1152 Page 3 May 8, 2025 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.” Id. 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. Redactions may be appropriate where they serve to preserve the anonymity of the complainant and voluntary witnesses. Antell, 52 Mass. App. Ct. at 248; Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 290 n.18; 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. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Ret. Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 438 (1983). The Supreme Judicial Court has held that “the inquiry as to what constitutes identifying information regarding an individual must be considered not only from the viewpoint of the public, but also from the vantage of those who are familiar with the individual and his [or her] career.” Id. at 438. Based on the Department’s response, and the review of records in camera, I find the Department has met its burden under Exemption (f) to redact from the responsive records any information that will directly or indirectly identify voluntary witnesses. See Antell, 52 Mass. App. Ct. at 248 (redactions may be appropriate under Exemption (f) where they serve to preserve the anonymity of voluntary witnesses). Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If the requestor is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies).

Allison Mondello SPR25/1152 Page 4 May 8, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Mass Accountability Network