James Reilly v. Quincy, City of - Police Department (SPR 20251301)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 22, 2025 SPR25/1301 Lieutenant Terence McDonnell Inspector of Divisions Quincy Police Department 1 Sea Street Quincy, MA 02169 Dear Lieutenant McDonnell: I have received the petition of James Reilly appealing the response of the Quincy 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 April 17, 2025, Mr. Reilly requested, “... all documents, reports and video footage related to Citation number T3416768. I was the recipient of the citation the morning of 4-16-2025.” The Department responded on April 30, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Reilly petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1301, 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 custodian must provide the responsive 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

Lieutenant Terence McDonnell SPR25/1301 Page 2 May 22, 2025 The Department’s April 30th Response In its April 30, 2025 response, the Department cited Exemption (f) to withhold the requested records in their entirety. Current appeal In his appeal, Mr. Reilly asserts, “[t]his in preparation for my schedule court date.” Mr. Reilly also stated, “[t]he showcause hearing is scheduled for the end of June.” 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 289-90. In its April 30, 2025 response, the Department states, “...given that this matter is currently awaiting action in the Trial Court system and may result in criminal prosecution, the release of such sensitive material would constitute an undue risk to successful prosecution in relation to this case.” Active 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:

Lieutenant Terence McDonnell SPR25/1301 Page 3 May 22, 2025 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. In light of the pending matter, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). I also decline to opine on the applicability of Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. It should be noted that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: James Reilly