The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth
Public Records Division
Rebecca S. Murray
Supervisor of Records

November 8, 2018

SPRlS/1570
Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
Director of Public Records
City of Boston
1City Hall Plaza, Room 615
Boston, MA 02201
Dear Attorney Williams:
I have received the petition of Todd Wallack of the Boston Globe appealing the response
of the Boston Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § lOA;
see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, on August 23, 2018, Mr. Wallack requested photos
of an identified Officer and Detective. On October 24, 2018, the Department provided a response
denying access to responsive records pursuant to Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. G. L.
c. 4, § 7(26)(f). Unsatisfied with the Department's response, Mr. Wallack petitioned this office
and this appeal, SPRl 8/1570, 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, § lOA(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 town of the
1
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, § lO(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, § 1O(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

 Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
Page2
November 8, 2018

SPR18/1570

The Department's October 24'h response
In its October 24, 2018 response, the Department indicates that the requested records" ...
exist in the form of identification cards for [both the Officer and Detective], each of which
includes a photograph." However, the Department asserts that the records are exempt from
disclosure pursuant to Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law.
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. Attorney 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-bycase 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.
Under its Exemption (f) claim, the Department indicates that because the records consists
of photographs that would identify these individuals, "[d]isclosure of these photos would harm
investigative efforts by both [the Officer and Detective] and would prevent the Department from
using [them] to employ investigative techniques associated with criminal investigations."
With respect to previous determinations containing photographs of police officers in
various public settings, the Department posits that "the [Department] attends or hosts public
events whereby police officers are permitted to be photographed or otherwise identified. In those
instances the police officers are engaged in a particular matter that permits such disclosure of
their likenesses. A decision is made by the Department as to the officers permitted to attend and
be photographed."
The Department explains that "[t]he role of [the Officer] is not the same as the role of
other officers described above who participate in public events for the Department." The

 Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
Page 3
November 8, 2018

SPR18/1570

Department asserts that "[u]nlike those officers, specific publication of the photo of the
[identified Officer] would compromise any subsequent investigation or assignment in which it
would be necessary to obscure or otherwise hide [his] identity as an officer of the [Department]."
The Department also explains that "[the Detective] is not a uniformed officer." As such, "[t]he
ability to hide her identity permits [her] to complete investigative tasks for the Department by
allowing her to mingle amongst civilians undetected." The Department contends that the
publication of the Detective's photograph "would eliminate her effectiveness in investigations, as
her identity as a detective would be known." The Department also asserts that her identification
" ... could endanger her life as well as the lives of informants, witnesses, civilians and other
officers who interact with [her] during and after investigations."
Further, with respect to the police identification card statute, G. L. c. 41, § 98D, which
states in pertinent part:
Each city or town shall issue to every full-time police officer employed by it an
identification card bearing the officer's photograph and identifying information.
The secretary of public safety and security may adopt regulations relative to the
form, content and issuance of such identification cards and to the carrying thereof
by municipal police officers. Such identification card shall be carried on the
officer's person and shall be exhibited upon lawful request for purposes of
identification.
G. L.

C.

41, § 98D.

The Department explains that the "statute requires 'every full-time officer' to bear
an identification card with a photo. The card and photo are used for identification." Its purpose,
the Department states "is to establish a 'unified identification card for police officers' in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. As a public record it is subject to mandatory disclosure unless
an appropriate exemption applies. The exemption in this instance is [E]xemption (f) of the
[P]ublic [R]ecords [L]aw."
Despite its response, I find the Department has not met its burden to establish that
disclosure of the photos "would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law
enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest." Particularly, it is unclear
how disclosure would "harm the investigative efforts" of the Officer and Detective, as it appears
their photographs may already be publicly available. I understand a Public Records Division staff
attorney contacted your office about this appeal.

Conclusion
Given that the Department did not meet its burden to explain how an exemption applies
to the records, the requested records may not be withheld. Accordingly, the Department is
ordered to provide Mr. Wallack with responsive records, provided in a manner consistent with
this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten business days. A copy of any

 Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
Page4
November 8, 2018

SPR18/1570

such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of this
response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. The Department may file a request for
reconsideration of this determination within ten business days of the date of this determination
letter.
Sincerely,

~a~
Supervisor of Records

cc: Todd Wallack