Tom Giblin v. Rockport, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20252163)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 1, 2025 SPR25/2163 Michelle Rowe Records Access Officer Rockport Police Department 168 Main Street Rockport, MA 01966 Dear Ms. Rowe: I have received the petition of Tom Giblin appealing the response of the Rockport 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 July 2, 2025, Mr. Giblin requested all records related to an incident that occurred on June 20, 2025 involving himself. The Department responded on July 9, 2025, providing a responsive record redacted under Exemptions (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c), (f). Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Giblin petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/2163, was opened as a result. Subsequently, the Department provided a supplemental response on August 1, 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

Michelle Rowe SPR25/2163 Page 2 August 1, 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 his appeal of the Department’s July 9th response, Mr. Giblin states, “[w]e don’t believe the redaction meets the standard. There were no crimes alleged or investigated.” The Department’s July 9th and August 1st Responses In its July 9, 2025 response, the Department provided Mr. Giblin with a responsive record with redactions under Exemptions (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c), (f). In the Department’s supplemental response on August 1st, the Department clarified its redactions were limited to Exemption (f) to protect the identity of a witness. 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. The Supreme Judicial Court has stated that Exemption (f) aims at “the avoidance of premature disclosure of the Commonwealth’s case prior to trial, the prevention of the disclosure of confidential investigative techniques, procedures, or sources of information, the encouragement of individual citizens to come forward and speak freely with police concerning

Michelle Rowe SPR25/2163 Page 3 August 1, 2025 matters under investigation, and the creation of initiative that police officers might be completely candid in recording their observations, hypotheses and interim conclusions.” Bougas, 371 Mass. at 62; cited with approval in Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289. 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. To properly claim that Exemption (f) applies, a custodian must demonstrate that the disclosure of the records would have a prejudicial effect on its investigative efforts. This can be accomplished by describing how the records fall into one of three categories. These are the three categories that justify withholding records under Exemption (f):  The records reflect an ongoing investigation, such that any information relating to an ongoing investigation that could potentially alert suspects or targets to the activities of investigative officials;  The records reflect internal techniques, procedures, or sources, such that their disclosure would prejudice not only ongoing, but future law enforcement efforts; or  Disclosure of records would cause a chilling effect, because the exemption allows investigative officials to provide an assurance of confidentiality to individuals so that they will speak openly about matters under investigation. Such records in this third category include: any details in statements that directly or indirectly identify a private citizen who volunteers as a witness; an entire statement if the identity of witnesses is known to the requestor; and information voluntarily provided by an individual or entity to aid in the investigation. In its August 1st response, the Department states: The party specifically asked the officer if they could remain anonymous due to the fear of possible retaliation or harassment by the involved party. We assured the witness/victim that we would safeguard their identity. If we now release their name, we would be breaking this assurance, which could potentially have disastrous and chilling effects for our department in the future should the public no longer feel they can trust us to protect their identity when coming forward to share information. Where the information has been redacted to protect a witness’ identity, I find the Department may properly redact such information pursuant to Exemption (f). Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Giblin 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. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies).

Michelle Rowe SPR25/2163 Page 4 August 1, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Tom Giblin