GIBBERISH IN JUNE, GIBBERISH IN JULY
Rebecca S.
Murray July
7, 2022
Supervisor of
Records
Re: SPR22/1410
In
regards to public records requested by Joe Viglione,
“the
photographs from the Bank of America incident of April Fool’s Day 2021”
The records, CCTV video/photographic images were obtained as
evidentiary material in the investigation of damage to the
entry/exit door of Bank of America located at 278 Mystic Ave. in Medford.
The Medford Police Department filed a criminal complaint application
with the Somerville District Court, the venue for the clerk magistrates/show cause
hearing was changed to the Cambridge District Court and was held on
September 24, 2021. The case was held
over for a period of 6 Months.
On
July 7, 2022 I contacted The Cambridge District Court Clerk Magistrates office
and was informed that the complaint application was denied on or about March
18, 2022 at a subsequent Clerk Magistrate/Assistant Clerk Magistrate show cause
hearing, thus dismissing the matter with no further judicial proceedings.
Since the criminal complaint has been dismissed, It is the Departments
assertion that the record requested, video and photographs in regards
to an incident in which an entry/exit door of Bank of America ATM
vestibule was damaged, is exempt from disclosure
under exemption C of the Public Records Law.
In support of the Departments position that the requested records is
exempt per exemption
C (personal identifying information (G.L. c. 4, § 7 (26)(c))
"(c) 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."
.
The Department is relying on the Court decision of the Supreme Judicial Court
in WBZ-TV4 vs. DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE SUFFOLK DISTRICT
408 Mass. 595 (1990) which was an appeal; “WBZ-TV4 (WBZ)
challenges orders of two single justices of this court denying WBZ
access to materials in the so-called Carol Stuart murder case.
The materials in question involve: (a) the videotape of a lineup at which
Charles Stuart identified William Bennett as the man who had shot
Stuart and his wife, Carol Stuart; and (b) a tape-recorded statement of a
witness in the
investigation.”
In
determining that the “videotape of a lineup” is not subject to disclosure under the law,
The Court in WBZ-TV4 vs.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE SUFFOLK DISTRICT, stated the following:
“The
image of a police lineup, broadcast over television and reprinted in newspapers
and elsewhere, would have an incalculably greater effect on a person's privacy
interest than dissemination of the written word.” 408 Mass. at 600 (1990)
The
Court in WBZ-TV4 vs. DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE SUFFOLK
DISTRICT 408 Mass. 595 (1990) explained:
“Bennett
has not been indicted, and the course of the grand jury investigation should
not be subject to intrusion in the way sought, at least at this time. We agree
with this conclusion. The fact that certain aspects of the investigation of
Bennett's alleged involvement with the Stuart case have received wide press
coverage does not diminish Bennett's right as an unindicted individual to be
free from the additional "notoriety and disgrace" that could attend
publication (in dramatic videotape format) of other details of the grand jury's
investigation. Further, as we shall discuss at more length in a moment, the videotape
is a matter of evidence which properly deserves protection in order to preserve
the secrecy of the grand jury.” 408 Mass. at 601 (1990)
Based
on the above decision of the Court, the record requested here is a
video/pictures, images which also would have a greater effect on the
individuals “privacy interest” than as the dissemination of the written word.
As the magistrate has dismissed the complaint, the publication of the
video/photograph would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Although the individual is a public official (City Councilor of the City of
Medford) the individual should “be free from the additional "notoriety and
disgrace" that could attend publication (in dramatic videotape format)”
408 Mass. at 601 (1990).
As
the complaint here has been dismissed at a clerk magistrate hearing, the
individual who is the subject of the police investigation has not been formerly
charged, arraigned, nor indicted of a crime.
Following the decision in WBZ-TV4 vs. District Attorney For Suffolk
County, the individual here should also as the court stated above “be free from the additional notoriety and
disgrace that could attend publication
(in dramatic videotape format)” 408
Mass. at 601 (1990).
The
court further stated that “the image of a
police lineup, broadcast over television and reprinted in newspapers and
elsewhere, would have an incalculably greater effect on a person's privacy
interest than dissemination of the written word.” 408 Mass. at 600 (1990). The record requested here is a video/photographic
images which if published would, as the Court has stated, have a greater effect
on the individuals “privacy interest”.
Mr.
Joseph Viglione is a Journalist, as stated in his request, and his intent is to
republish the video/pictures, as stated in his request, “this information is of
great public interest, especially during an election cycle”. The publishing of
video/pictures of an individual allegedly committing a criminal offense
involving property damage would also have a greater effect than the
dissemination of the written word.
The
individual in the video/photographic record requested here, has a privacy
interest in the record. Since the
Magistrate here subsequently dismissed the complaint at a show cause hearing with
no further judicial/prosecutorial proceedings, the disclosure of the
video/picture are materials or data
relating to a specifically named
individual, and may constitute an
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, per exemption C.
Respectfully
Submitted
Lt. Joseph Casey
0 comments:
Post a Comment