Joseph Rowland v. Suffolk County District Attorney's Office (SPR 20251734)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 1, 2025 SPR25/1734 Caileigh Durkin Records Access Officer Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office One Bulfinch Place Boston, MA 02114 Dear Ms. Durkin: I have received the petition of Joseph Rowland appealing the response of the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office (Office) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On April 3, 2025, Mr. Rowland requested . . . DAMION export of all murder and mansalughter [sic] dockets filed in the city of Boston from 1965 to Present. Please include, at minimum, the defendant file number (docket number), the name of the defendant, the list of charges on case, the filing agency, the offense date, the assigned ADA, the legal outcome (plea, guilty verdict, etc), the initial sentence, and any additional fields. The Office responded on April 10, 2025 and assigned reference number 250403 to this request. Unsatisfied with the Office’s response, Mr. Rowland petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/1734, 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 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

Caileigh Durkin SPR25/1734 Page 2 July 1, 2025 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. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Rowland argues the following: In their response, the SCDAO claims that docket numbers can’t be included because they are “identifying information” and “disclosure of identifying information is prohibited under Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) statutes: G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a); G.L. c. 6, §§ 167A, 172.” In a follow-up email, an SCDAO RAO explained that it is their current policy to exclude docket numbers from exports, despite previously sending me a DAMION export with docket numbers included (see PRR #240801A). . . . I am appealing the April 10th response because I disagree that docket numbers can be excluded under the CORI Act. A docket number is an identification number assigned by the court system to each court case. The number can be used to view case information and a docket summary on Masscourts. Therefore, docket numbers are criminal court record information, not criminal history information, which is maintained by law enforcement agencies. SCDAO included fields such as “Case ID,” “ID Person,” defendant demographic information, and the defendant’s prison facility, but excluded the primary field I was requesting. My intention is to use the docket numbers to research Boston homicide cases between 2013 and present, in order to update the Boston Homicide Map (bostonhomicidemap.com). The defendants’ full names will not be made public by me and I don’t plan to share the list of docket numbers with anyone else. This request will ease the burden on the Suffolk Superior Criminal Clerk’s Office, because I can perform my research without them having to manually search each docket number for me. Upon review of the appeal petition, it appears Mr. Rowland objects only to the withholding of docket numbers from the records provided by the Office. The Office’s April 10th Response In its April 10, 2025 response, the Office provides “spreadsheets containing the requested DAMION data and three ‘keys’ for race, ethnicity, and disposition entries.” The Office further explains the following:

Caileigh Durkin SPR25/1734 Page 3 July 1, 2025 Additionally, this Office cannot complete a few aspects of your request. First, the DAMION database contains only a handful of entries for cases before 2000; it does not contain data back to 1965, as you requested. Second, DAMION entry fields, such as the defendant’s name and docket number, are not included in this production per G.L. c. 4, § 7 cl. 26(a) and (c); information such as names or docket numbers is identifying and exempt from production. 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, 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. Criminal Offender Record Information The current definition of criminal offender record information (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 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

Caileigh Durkin SPR25/1734 Page 4 July 1, 2025 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. Criminal offender record information shall not include information concerning any offenses which are not punishable by incarceration. G. L. c. 6, § 167. Additionally, G. L. c. 6, § 172(m) provides in pertinent part: Notwithstanding this section or chapter 66A, the following shall be public records: (1) police daily logs, arrest registers, or other similar records compiled chronologically; (2) chronologically maintained court records of public judicial proceedings; (3) published records of public court or administrative proceedings, and of public judicial administrative or legislative proceedings; and (4) decisions of the parole board as provided in section 130 of chapter 127. G. L. c. 6, § 172(m). In its April 10th response, the Office argues the following under CORI: In the context of data revealing criminal charge information, disclosure of identifying information is prohibited under Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) statutes: G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a); G.L. c. 6, §§ 167A, 172. Massachusetts General law defines CORI as “information that concerns an identifiable individual and relates to the nature or disposition of a criminal charge, an arrest, a pre-trial proceeding… sentencing, incarceration, rehabilitation, or release.” The information in this data production from DAMION is directly related to criminal charges and, if accompanied by information identifying defendants, would violate laws limiting access to CORI. One of the included fields, “ID person,” is only used on DAMION and helps differentiate between defendants without the identifying information. Based on its response, the Office has not met its burden to demonstrate how the docket numbers may be withheld pursuant to the CORI statute, as it operates through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 6, § 172(m); see also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Dist. Att’y for the Middle Dist., 439 Mass. 374, 385 (2003) (“docket numbers are assigned chronologically

Caileigh Durkin SPR25/1734 Page 5 July 1, 2025 and maintained by courts as part of their court records, criminal proceedings against adult defendants are public proceedings, and docket number information thus falls squarely within the second listed exception to the CORI statute”); see also Att’y Gen. v. Dist. Att’y for the Plymouth Dist., 484 Mass. 260 (2020). Specifically, it is unclear how the narrow scope of this request would allow the docket numbers to be withheld under Exemption (a) and CORI. See Middle Dist., 439 Mass. at 385 (“docket numbers of criminal cases prosecuted in public judicial proceedings, correlated with information that is also available from court or other public records, but not correlated with defendant-specific information, are public records under G.L. c. 4, § 7, Twenty-sixth, subject to mandatory disclosure under G.L. c. 66, § 10, and their disclosure is not prohibited by the CORI statute”). The Office must clarify this. Exemption (c) Exemption (c) applies to: personnel and medical files or information and any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; provided, however, that this subclause shall not apply to records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Analysis under Exemption (c) is subjective in nature and requires a balancing of the public’s right to know against the relevant privacy interests at stake. Torres v. Att’y Gen., 391 Mass. 1, 9 (1984); Att’y Gen. v. Assistant Comm’r of Real Prop. Dep’t, 380 Mass. 623, 625 (1980). Therefore, determinations must be made on a case-by-case basis. This exemption does not protect all data relating to specifically named individuals. Rather, there are factors to consider when assessing the weight of the privacy interest at stake: (1) whether disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities; (2) whether the materials sought contain intimate details of a highly personal nature; and (3) whether the same information is available from other sources. See People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280, 292 (2017). When analyzing a privacy claim, there is a balancing test which provides that where the public interest in obtaining the requested information substantially outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy, the private interest in preventing disclosure must yield. PETA, 477 Mass. at 291. The public has a recognized interest in knowing whether public servants are carrying out their duties in a law abiding and efficient manner. Id. at 292. Based on the Office’s response, it is unclear how the docket numbers are intimate details of a highly personal nature nor how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. It is additionally uncertain whether the withheld information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. Also, the Office did not provide additional information with respect to the balancing test, which examines whether the public

Caileigh Durkin SPR25/1734 Page 6 July 1, 2025 interest in obtaining the requested information outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy. The Office must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Office is ordered to provide Mr. Rowland 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. Mr. Rowland may further appeal the substantive nature of the Office’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Joseph Rowland