Robert LeBlanc v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20252452)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 2, 2025 SPR25/2452 Christine O’Donnell, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel Office of the Legal Advisor Boston Police Department 1 City Hall Square Boston, MA 02201 Dear Attorney O’Donnell: I have received the petition of Robert LeBlanc appealing the response of the Boston 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 October 15, 2024, Mr. LeBlanc requested “… any and all public records in [the Department’s] possession concerning the murder investigation of [an identified individual] in East Boston, Massachusetts on November 6, 1975, and the subsequent arrest and prosecution of [an identified individual] in this matter.” Prior Appeals This request was the subject of prior appeals. See SPR24/3023 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 15, 2024) and SPR25/1701 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 25, 2025). In my June 25th determination, I found that the Department had met its burden to redact the identifying information of voluntary witnesses, but not the handwritten notes of investigators, under Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. The Department responded on July 9, 2025, and assigned the request reference number B000425-021424. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. LeBlanc petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2452, 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

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/2452 Page 2 September 2, 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 July 9th Response In its July 9, 2025 response, the Department provided additional justification for its redaction of the handwritten notes of investigative officials under Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. Current Appeal In his August 12, 2025 petition to this office, Mr. LeBlanc contended that the Department’s redactions were overbroad, and that the handwritten notes were subject to public disclosure. 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.

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/2452 Page 3 September 2, 2025 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. In its July 9th response, the Department stated: It is established that one of the purposes of the investigatory exemption is “the creation of initiative that police officers might be completely candid in recording their observation, hypotheses and interim conclusion.” Eric Mack v. District Attorney for the Bristol District, SJC-13468, 21 (2024) quoting Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289 (1979) and Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 62 (1976). The redacted notes are notes of police officers who were the investigative officials investigating a murder of a Boston Police Officer. The notes contained the observations of police officers about the evidence in the murder investigation. The redacted notes contained the officers’ observations of the witnesses and their initial thoughts and analysis of the evidence presented to them. These are the types of records that are contemplated by the investigatory exemption. The redacted notes are the investigating officials recording their observations, thoughts, initial analysis, and interim conclusions. The essence of the investigatory exemption is for officers to be candid in their thoughts and analysis when evaluating evidence. If notes of investigative officials are released under public records, investigators may be less inclined to record their initial observations. Such a result would prejudice future law enforcement investigations because analyzing and evaluating evidence and drawing initial conclusions are essential parts of the investigatory process. The investigatory exemption recognizes the importance that officers are candid in their observations in the investigatory process and solving crimes. Because the notes contained the observations, thoughts, initial analysis, and interim conclusions of police officers in investigating a homicide, the notes are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Exemption F. It is not in the public’s interest to obtain these notes because disclosure will prejudice future law enforcement efforts. Based on the Department’s response, and where disclosure of the redacted portions of investigator’s notes “would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest[,]” I find that the Department has met its burden to redact the responsive records under Exemption (f). See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289. Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. LeBlanc 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).

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/2452 Page 4 September 2, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Robert LeBlanc