11/14/13

WORCESTER TELEGRAM & GAZETTE CORPORATION vs. WORCESTER CHIEF OF POLICE, 436 Mass. 378

WORCESTER TELEGRAM & GAZETTE CORPORATION vs. CHIEF OF POLICE OF WORCESTER & another. [Note1] 436 Mass. 378 January 7, 2002 - March 21, 2002 Worcester County Present: MARSHALL, C.J., GREANEY, IRELAND, SPINA, COWIN, SOSMAN, & CORDY, JJ.
PublicRecords.MunicipalCorporations,Publicrecord,Police.Police,Records.Privacy. ASuperiorCourtjudgedidnot,inthecircumstances,abusehisdiscretioninallowinglimited disclosure,pursuanttoG.L.c.66,s.10,toanewspaper'slegalcounselofcopiesofpolice departmentrecordsontheinternalinvestigationintocomplaintslodgedbyanindividualwhohad allegedpolicemisconduct,wherethedisclosure,whichwassubjecttoadetailedprotectiveorder, testedthedepartment'sclaimthattherequesteddocumentswereexemptfrompublicdisclosureas "personnelfiles"inaccordancewithG.L.c.4,s.7,Twentysixth.[382384,385386] Discussionofseveralmechanismssanctionedbythiscourtforthereviewof"publicrecords"to determinewhethertheyare,infact,exemptfromdisclosurepursuanttoG.L.c.4,s.7,Twenty sixth.[384385] CIVILACTIONcommencedintheSuperiorCourtDepartmentonMay10,2000. AmotiontopermitinspectionofpublicrecordspursuanttoaprotectiveorderwasheardbyJames P.Donohue,J. TheSupremeJudicialCourtonitsowninitiativetransferredthecasefromtheAppealsCourt. DavidM.Moore,CitySolicitor,forthedefendants. VincentF.O'Rourke,Jr.,fortheplaintiff.

SPINA,J.WeareaskedinthiscasetoreviewanorderofaSuperiorCourtjudgethatcompels
thedefendants,thechiefofpoliceofWorcesterandthecityofWorcester,toproducecertain documentsrequestedbytheplaintiff,WorcesterTelegram&GazetteCorporation,pursuanttoG. L.c.66,10,forinspectionbytheirrespectivecounsel,subjecttoaprotectiveorder.Weaffirm theorder.

Page379
ShawnWilderfiledacomplaintallegingmisconductbyPatrolmanMichaelA.Tarckiniwhen, withoutcauseorexplanation,hedetainedandarrestedWilderatgunpoint.[Note2]The Worcesterpolicedepartmentclaimedtohaveconductedaninternalaffairsinvestigationofthe allegationsandfoundnocausetodisciplinePatrolmanTarckini.OnOctober1,1999,pursuantto G.L.c.66,10(a),[Note3]theplaintiffrequestedthatthedefendantsrelease"copiesof
masscases.com/cases/sjc/436/436mass378.html 1/8

11/14/13

WORCESTER TELEGRAM & GAZETTE CORPORATION vs. WORCESTER CHIEF OF POLICE, 436 Mass. 378

WorcesterPoliceDepartmentrecordsontheinternalinvestigationintothecomplaintslodgedby ShawnWilderoronhisbehalf,stemmingfromanincident[on]May1,1999."Thedefendants respondedthattherecordssoughtbytheplaintiffwerespecificallyexemptfrompublicdisclosure pursuanttooneormoreoftheexceptionssetforthinG.L.c.4,7,Twentysixth(a),(b),(c),and (f).[Note4]Theplaintiffthenpetitionedthesupervisorofpublicrecords(supervisor),appealing

Page380
fromthedefendants'refusaltocomplywithitspublicrecordsrequest.Thesupervisororderedthe defendantstoreleasetherequestedrecordstotheplaintiff,redactingonlythenamesand identifyingdetailsofvoluntarywitnesses,complainants,andinformants.Thedefendantsrefused tocomplywiththeplaintiff'srequestandthesupervisor'sorder.[Note5] OnMay10,2000,theplaintifffiledintheSuperiorCourtacomplaintinthenatureofamandamus actionpursuanttoG.L.c.66,10(b),[Note6]and950CodeMass.Regs.32.08(2)(1993). Theplaintiffsoughttocompelthedefendantstoreleasethefollowingdocuments:(1)all complaintsagainstthepolicedepartmentarisingoutofWilder'sdetentionandarrest(2)allpolice officer,witness,andinformantstatementsrelatingtosuchcomplaints(3)allinternalinvestigation reportsrelatingtosuch

Page381
complaints(4)allinvestigatoryfindingsrelatingtosuchcomplaintsand(5)alldocumentsrelating tothedispositionofsuchcomplaints.[Note7] TheplaintiffalsofiledintheSuperiorCourtamotiontopermitinspectionofthepublicrecords sought,subjecttoaprotectiveorder.RelyingonGlobeNewspaperCo.v.PoliceComm'rof Boston,419Mass.852(1995),itassertedthatthecircumstancesofthiscasewarranted inspectionsoastotestthedefendants'claimthattherequesteddocumentswereexemptfrom publicdisclosure. Thejudgeallowedtheplaintiff'smotion,pursuanttoadetailedprotectiveorder.Heacknowledged thattheexemptionstopublicdisclosuresetforthinG.L.c.4,7,Twentysixth,couldapply,to someextent,tothedocumentsrequestedbytheplaintiff.However,thejudgestatedthathecould notconclude,asamatteroflaw,thatsuchdocumentswereautomaticallyexemptfromdisclosure withoutfurtherinquiryintotheirprecisenature.Heopinedthatthecustodianofpublicrecords couldnotbethesolearbiteroftheapplicabilityofanyexemptiontodisclosureorthepurpose behindG.L.c.66,10,wouldbeundermined. ThedefendantsfiledintheAppealsCourtapetitionforinterlocutoryrelieffromthejudge'sorder pursuanttoG.L.c.231,118,firstpar.AsinglejusticeoftheAppealsCourtdeniedthepetition. Thedefendantsfiledamotionforreconsiderationor,inthealternative,foranorderreportingthe followingquestiontothefullcourt:WhetherWakefieldTeachersAss'nv.SchoolComm.of Wakefield,431Mass.792(2000),precludesdisclosureofinternalaffairsfilesunderG.L.c.4,7, Twentysixth.Onreconsideration,thesinglejusticedeclinedtogrant
masscases.com/cases/sjc/436/436mass378.html 2/8

11/14/13

WORCESTER TELEGRAM & GAZETTE CORPORATION vs. WORCESTER CHIEF OF POLICE, 436 Mass. 378

Page382
thedefendants'requestforinterlocutoryrelief,butshegavethedefendantsleavetofileanotice ofappealofthisissueinthetrialcourt.Wetransferredthecasetothiscourtonourownmotion. [Note8] ThedefendantscontendthatWakefieldTeachersAss'nv.SchoolComm.ofWakefield,supra,is dispositiveoftheplaintiff'smotiontopermitinspectionofrecordsbecauseitestablishedthatthe "personnelfiles"exemptioninG.L.c.4,7,Twentysixth(c),appliescategoricallytodocuments createdorassembledaspartofaninvestigationintoallegationsofmisconductbyaparticular publicemployee(here,PatrolmanTarckini).[Note9]Thedefendantsassertthatthereisno differencebetweentheinternalinvestigationconductedbytheschoolsuperintendentinWakefield TeachersAss'nv.SchoolComm.ofWakefield,supra,andtheinternalaffairsinvestigation conductedbythechiefofpoliceofWorcester.Because,asthedefendantsargue,a"personnel file"isexemptfromdisclosure,noamountofreviewbytheplaintiffwillmaketherequested documentspublicrecords.Theplaintiff,ontheotherhand,assertsthat,inlightofthedefendants' contentionthatalloftheinternalaffairsdocumentssoughtbytheplaintiffareexemptas "personnelfiles,"itscounsel,ataminimum,shouldbeallowedtohaveaccesstotherequested documentstodeterminetheaccuracyofthedefendants'claimofexemption. TheprimarypurposeofG.L.c.66,10,istogivethepublic

Page383
broadaccesstogovernmentalrecords.SeeGlobeNewspaperCo.v.BostonRetirementBd.,388 Mass.427,436(1983).Tothatend,disclosureisfavoredbythe"presumptionthattherecord soughtispublic."G.L.c.66,10(c).ThepurposeofG.L.c.66,10,however,"shouldnotbe usedasameansofdisregardingtheconsideredjudgmentoftheLegislaturethatthepublicright ofaccessshouldberestrictedincertaincircumstances."GlobeNewspaperCo.v.Boston RetirementBd.,supra.InG.L.c.4,7,Twentysixth,theLegislaturehasidentifiedtwelve categoriesofrecords,otherwisepublic,thatareexemptfromdisclosure,including"personnel... filesorinformation"and"investigatorymaterialsnecessarilycompiledoutofthepublicviewbylaw enforcement...thedisclosureofwhichmaterialswouldprobablysoprejudicethepossibilityof effectivelawenforcementthatsuchdisclosurewouldnotbeinthepublicinterest."Thecustodian oftherequestedrecordhastheburdenofproving,withspecificity,theapplicabilityoftherelevant exemption.SeeG.L.c.66,10(c)DistrictAttorneyfortheNorfolkDist.v.Flatley,419Mass. 507,511(1995).Totheextentthatonlyaportionofapublicrecordmayfallwithinanexemption todisclosure,thenonexempt"segregableportion"oftherecordissubjecttopublicaccess.SeeG. L.c.66,10(a)Reinsteinv.PoliceComm'rofBoston,378Mass.281,287288,290(1979)(" [t]hatsomeexemptmaterialmaybefoundinadocumentorreportofaninvestigatorycharacter doesnotjustifyclotureastoallofit"). Thereisno"blanketexemption"topublicdisclosureforrecordskeptbypolicedepartmentsorfor investigatorymaterials.SeeDistrictAttorneyfortheNorfolkDist.v.Flatley,supraat512513 (judgemustdeterminewhetherprosecutor'shandwrittennotesassembledafterinterviewwith
masscases.com/cases/sjc/436/436mass378.html 3/8

11/14/13

WORCESTER TELEGRAM & GAZETTE CORPORATION vs. WORCESTER CHIEF OF POLICE, 436 Mass. 378

rapevictimconstitutepublicrecordsorareexemptaslawenforcement"investigatorymaterials") Bougasv.ChiefofPoliceofLexington,371Mass.59,65(1976)(noteverydocumentplaced withinwhatmaybecharacterizedbypolicedepartmentasinvestigatoryfilenecessarilyexempt frompublicdisclosure).Rather,theapplicabilityofanexemptiontopublicdisclosuremustbe determinedona

Page384
casebycasebasis.[Note10]SeeReinsteinv.PoliceComm'rofBoston,supraat289290. "Theremustbespecificproofelicitedthatthedocumentssoughtareofatypeforwhichan exemptionhasbeenprovided"(footnoteomitted).Bougasv.ChiefofPoliceofLexington,supraat 6566. Thiscourthassanctionedseveralmechanismsforthereviewof"publicrecords"todetermine whethertheyare,infact,exemptfromdisclosurepursuanttoG.L.c.4,7,Twentysixth.Where theapplicabilityofanexemptionisquestionable,incamerainspectionbyajudgemaybe appropriate.Id.at66.Thiscourthasstated,however,that"[i]ncamerainspectionanddecisionby thejudge...[should]beusedonlyinthelastresort."Reinsteinv.PoliceComm'rofBoston,supra at295.SeeBougasv.ChiefofPoliceofLexington,supraat65. Reviewof"publicrecords"canbeaccomplishedthroughtheuseofanitemizedandindexed documentloginwhichthecustodiansetsforthdetailedjustificationsforitsclaimsofexemption. SeeReinsteinv.PoliceComm'rofBoston,supraat295.Opposingcounselthenhasan opportunitytoreviewthelog,aswellastheclaimedexemptions,andtoeliminatefromfurther considerationthosedocuments,orportionsthereof,thatarenotcontroverted,therebynarrowing thescopeofthecourt'sinquiry.[Note11]Id.Thejudgemayemploythemethodofreviewhe deemsmostadvisable,andthereisroomforflexibility.Id.at296. Athirdavenueforthereviewofdisputed"publicrecords"isforajudgetopermitcounselforthe custodianandcounselfor

Page385
thepartyseekingproductiontohaveaccesstothedocumentssubjecttoanappropriateprotective order.SeeGlobeNewspaperCo.v.PoliceComm'rofBoston,supraat868."Thepartiescould thenparticularizetheirargumentstothejudge,citingspecificmaterials,orportionsofmaterials, thatareexemptorsubjecttodisclosure.Thiswouldrelievethejudgefromatediousexamination ofmaterialsagainstgeneralizedclaimsthatexemptionsareapplicable."Id.at868869. Inordertodeterminewhetherthedocumentsrequestedbytheplaintiffwere"publicrecords" subjecttodisclosureorwhethertheyfellintooneoftheexemptcategories,asclaimedbythe defendants,thejudgebelowdecidedtoproceedwiththethirdmechanismofreviewforthe documentsatissue.Thedocumentsrequestedbytheplaintiffmay,infact,allbe"personnelfiles" thatwouldbeexemptfromdisclosure.However,suchdocumentsalsomaybeacombinationof personnelinformationandothermaterialsthatwouldbesegregableandsubjecttodisclosureas
masscases.com/cases/sjc/436/436mass378.html 4/8

11/14/13

WORCESTER TELEGRAM & GAZETTE CORPORATION vs. WORCESTER CHIEF OF POLICE, 436 Mass. 378

"publicrecords."Allowingthedefendantstodecideunilaterally,withoutanyoversight,what documentsaresubjecttodisclosureandwhatdocumentsareexemptiswhollyinconsistentwith thepurposeofG.L.c.66,10.Accordingly,giventheoptionsthatwereavailabletothejudgefor ascertainingwhetherthedocumentssoughtbytheplaintiffwere"publicrecords,"weconcludethat hedidnotabusehisdiscretioninallowinglimiteddisclosuretotheplaintiff'scounsel,subjecttoa protectiveorder.SeeJudgeRotenbergEduc.Ctr.,Inc.v.CommissioneroftheDep'tofMental Retardation(No.1),424Mass.430,461(1997)(scopeandconductofdiscoverywithinsound discretionofjudge). Thedefendants'relianceonWakefieldTeachersAss'nv.SchoolComm.ofWakefield,supra,is premature.Inthatcase,thetrialjudgeconductedanincamerareviewofthe"publicrecord"at issue,adisciplinarydecisionandreportbythesuperintendentofWakefieldpublicschools regardingtheperformanceofaWakefieldpublicschoolteacher.Inconcludingthatthereport, whichresultedintheteacher'sfourweeksuspension,constitutedpartoftheteacher's"personnel ...file[]orinformation"andwasexemptfrompublicdisclosure,weknewthespecifictypeof documentthatwasatissue.See

Page386
G.L.c.4,7,Twentysixth(c)WakefieldTeachersAss'nv.SchoolComm.ofWakefield,supraat 793,797799,andcasescited.Here,thecustodianoftherecordsmadeablanketassertionthat alldocumentscreatedorassembledaspartoftheinvestigationwereexempt.Thus,the applicabilityoftheWakefieldTeachersAss'ncaseandthe"personnelfiles"exemptiontopublic recordsdisclosurecanonlybeascertainedafterthe"records"havebeenreviewedtodetermine theirprecisenature.SeeGlobeNewspaperCo.v.BostonRetirementBd.,supraat435("Not everybitofinformationwhichmightbefoundinapersonnelormedicalfileisnecessarilypersonal soastofallwithintheexemption'sprotection").Cf.DepartmentoftheAirForcev.Rose,425U.S. 352,371,376377(1976)(Congressdidnotcreateblanketexemptionforpersonnelfilesunder FreedomofInformationAct,5U.S.C.552[b][6],onwhichG.L.c.4,7,Twentysixth,is generallybased).Thedocumentsrequestedbytheplaintiffarenottobeinsulatedfromdisclosure merelybecausetheyhavebeendesignatedbythedefendantsasconstitutinga"personnelfile." Whatiscriticalisthenatureorcharacterofthedocuments,nottheirlabel.SeeGlobeNewspaper Co.v.BostonRetirementBd.,supraat435. Theorderallowingtheplaintiff'smotiontopermitinspectionofpublicrecordspursuanttothe protectiveorderisaffirmed. Soordered.

FOOTNOTES [Note1]CityofWorcester. [Note2]ThecomplaintallegedthatWilder,whowassufferingfromabrokenneck,wasforcedto liefacedownonthepavement,atwhichtimePatrolmanTarckinisteppedwithfullforceonthe

masscases.com/cases/sjc/436/436mass378.html 5/8

11/14/13

WORCESTER TELEGRAM & GAZETTE CORPORATION vs. WORCESTER CHIEF OF POLICE, 436 Mass. 378

backofhisneck,causingWildertoloseconsciousness.Whileunconscious,Wilderwas handcuffed,arrested,andtakentotheUniversityofMassachusettsMedicalCenterfortreatment ofhisinjuries.NocriminalchargeswerebroughtagainstWilder.Afterinvestigationbytheplaintiff, norecordofthephysicalconfrontation,ofWilder'sinjuries,orofhistransporttothemedical centerappearedintheWorcesterpolicedepartment'spubliclogforMay1,1999. [Note3]GeneralLawsc.66,10(a),provides,inpertinentpart:"Everypersonhavingcustodyof anypublicrecord,asdefinedin[G.L.c.4,7,Twentysixth],shall,atreasonabletimesand withoutunreasonabledelay,permitit,oranysegregableportionofarecordwhichisan independentpublicrecord,tobeinspectedandexaminedbyanyperson,underhissupervision, andshallfurnishonecopythereofuponpaymentofareasonablefee." [Note4]GeneralLawsc.4,7,Twentysixth,provides,inpertinentpart:"'Publicrecords'shall meanallbooks,papers,maps,photographs,recordedtapes,financialstatements,statistical tabulations,orotherdocumentarymaterialsordata,regardlessofphysicalformorcharacteristics, madeorreceivedbyanyofficeroremployeeofanyagency,executiveoffice,department,board, commission,bureau,divisionorauthorityofthecommonwealth,orofanypoliticalsubdivision thereof,orofanyauthorityestablishedbythegeneralcourttoserveapublicpurpose,unlesssuch materialsordatafallwithinthefollowingexemptionsinthattheyare: "(a)specificallyorbynecessaryimplicationexemptedfromdisclosurebystatute "(b)relatedsolelytointernalpersonnelrulesandpracticesofthegovernmentunit,provided however,thatsuchrecordsshallbewithheldonlytotheextentthatproperperformanceof necessarygovernmentalfunctionsrequiressuchwithholding "(c)personnelandmedicalfilesorinformationalsoanyothermaterialsordatarelatingtoa specificallynamedindividual,thedisclosureofwhichmayconstituteanunwarrantedinvasionof personalprivacy "... "(f)investigatorymaterialsnecessarilycompiledoutofthepublicviewbylawenforcementorother investigatoryofficialsthedisclosureofwhichmaterialswouldprobablysoprejudicethepossibility ofeffectivelawenforcementthatsuchdisclosurewouldnotbeinthepublicinterest." [Note5]ThedefendantshaveassertedthatonJune13,2000,copiesofWilder'scomplaint,which hadinitiatedtheinternalaffairsinvestigation,werereleasedtotheplaintiff,togetherwithacopyof thedispositionlettersenttoWildersettingforththeresultsoftheinvestigation.Thenamesofthe citizens,witnesses,andpoliceofficersinvolvedwereredacted. [Note6]GeneralLawsc.66,10(b),provides,inpertinentpart:"Acustodianofapublicrecord shall,withintendaysfollowingreceiptofarequestforinspectionorcopyofapublicrecord, complywithsuchrequest....Ifthecustodianrefusesorfailstocomplywithsucharequest,the personmakingtherequestmaypetitionthesupervisorofrecordsforadeterminationwhetherthe recordrequestedispublic.Uponthedeterminationbythesupervisorofrecordsthattherecordis
masscases.com/cases/sjc/436/436mass378.html 6/8

11/14/13

WORCESTER TELEGRAM & GAZETTE CORPORATION vs. WORCESTER CHIEF OF POLICE, 436 Mass. 378

public,heshallorderthecustodianofthepublicrecordtocomplywiththeperson'srequest.Ifthe custodianrefusesorfailstocomplywithanysuchorder,thesupervisorofrecordsmaynotifythe attorneygeneralortheappropriatedistrictattorneythereofwhomaytakewhatevermeasureshe deemsnecessarytoinsurecompliancewiththeprovisionsofthissection....[T]headministrative remedyprovidedbythissection[shallnot]inanywaylimittheavailabilityofjudicialremedies otherwiseavailabletoanypersonrequestingapublicrecord.Ifacustodianofapublicrecord refusesorfailstocomplywiththerequestofanypersonforinspectionorcopyofapublicrecord orwithanadministrativeorderunderthissection,thesupremejudicialorsuperiorcourtshallhave jurisdictiontoordercompliance." [Note7]Inansweringthecomplaint,thedefendantsadmittedthattheinternalaffairsfileinthis mattercontainedthefollowingcategoriesofdocuments:"1)therequestforaninvestigationfiled byanattorneyrepresentingacitizeninvolvedwiththepoliceonMay1,19992)variousreportsof policeofficerstotheirsuperiorofficersstatementsofwitnesses3)notesofinvestigatorson interviewsanddiscussions4)memorandaanalyzingtheevidencegatheredbytheinvestigation 5)memorandabetweenthepolicedepartmentandothercitydepartments6)letterstothe attorneyforthecomplainant7)copiesof[CriminalOffenderRecordInformation]reportson variousindividualsand,[8)]miscellaneousnotesanddocuments." [Note8]Inaseparateproceeding,theplaintiffhassoughtthereleaseof111internalaffairsfiles, consistingofallinternalaffairscomplaintsinvestigatedtoaconclusionincalendaryears1997and 1998.Bystipulationoftheparties,thisseparateproceedinghasbeenstayedandwillbegoverned bythedispositionofthepresentcase. [Note9]Initsoppositiontotheplaintiff'smotiontopermitinspectionofpublicrecords,the defendantsdidnotrelyonthe"personnelfiles"exemptiontopublicdisclosure.Rather,the defendantsclaimedthatreleaseoftherequesteddocumentstotheplaintiff,evenundera protectiveorder,wouldviolatetheinterestsprotectedbytheinvestigatoryandprivacyexemptions setforthinG.L.c.4,7,Twentysixth(c),(f).Itwasonlyaftertheissuanceofourdecisionin WakefieldTeachersAss'nv.SchoolComm.ofWakefield,431Mass.792(2000),thatthe defendantssentalettertothejudge,whohadnotyetruledontheplaintiff'smotion,informinghim thatthiscasesupportedthedefendants'argumentsagainstthereleaseofthedocuments requestedbytheplaintiff.Thefocusofthedefendants'appealisnowonthe"personnelfiles" exemptiontopublicdisclosure. [Note10]Thiscourthasnotedthatthereisadistinction"between'governmentsurveillanceor oversightoftheperformanceofdutiesofitsemployees'and'investigationswhichfocusdirectlyon specificallyallegedillegalacts,illegalactsofparticularidentifiedofficials,actswhichcould,if proved,resultincivilorcriminalsanctions.'"Reinsteinv.PoliceComm'rofBoston,378Mass.281 ,291(1979),quotingRuralHous.Alliancev.UnitedStatesDep'tofAgric.,498F.2d73,81(D.C. Cir.1974).Materialscompiledasaresultofroutinemonitoringbyapolicedepartmentofits employeeswillnotusuallyfallwithinthescopeofaninvestigatoryexemptiontopublicdisclosure. SeeGlobeNewspaperCo.v.PoliceComm'rofBoston,419Mass.852,859n.10(1995).The internalaffairsinvestigationhereindidnotconstitutegeneralmonitoringbythepolicedepartment
masscases.com/cases/sjc/436/436mass378.html 7/8

11/14/13

WORCESTER TELEGRAM & GAZETTE CORPORATION vs. WORCESTER CHIEF OF POLICE, 436 Mass. 378

ofitsemployees. [Note11]Wearecognizantofthefactthatthismechanismisnotwithoutitslimitationsinthatthe labelingandindexingofthedocumentsforwhichexemptionfrompublicdisclosureissoughtmay bemisleadingorerroneous.

Home/Search TableofCasesbyCitation TableofCasesbyName Disclaimer CommonwealthofMassachusetts.TrialCourtLawLibraries.Questionsaboutlegalinformation? ContactReferenceLibrarians.

masscases.com/cases/sjc/436/436mass378.html

8/8