Secret Investigatory Materials

Also known as G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26(f) Investigation exemption.

Thank you to Caitlin Russell for contributing to this entry. This guide is for informational purposes only, is general in nature, and is not legal opinion nor legal advice regarding any specific issue or factual circumstance.

This exemption applies to investigatory materials that if released could hinder an investigation.

Example Appeals

I'm appealing [police department's] assertion that it is appropriate to apply G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26(f) (the secret investigatory materials exemption). The police cannot withhold investigatory materials simply because the materials are part of an investigative file.
There is case law which holds that in many cases opening investigatory materials to public inspection can serve the public interest better than keeping the information private, as transparency helps the public hold the police and court system accountable. (Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 13 (1986) (Press-Enterprise II).
The Supreme Court has also held, in Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980), that “To work effectively, it is important that society's criminal process ‘satisfy the appearance of justice,’ (Offutt v. United States, 348 U. S. 11, 348 U. S. 14), which can best be provided by allowing people to observe such process.”

Proper Use

Police may withhold documents that are part of an ongoing investigation, so as not to compromise the development of the case. They may also withhold the documents if they can demonstrate that releasing them would reveal secret investigative techniques. In addition, redactions may be made to released materials in order to protect the identities of witnesses and victims, particularly of sexual assault/rape and domestic violence.

Improper Use

Materials are not automatically exempt from disclosure by virtue of being part if an investigatory file. Simply because a document is part of an investigatory file it is not automatically exempt from disclosure. The burden is on the police to justify non-disclosure of investigatory materials, and prove that releasing disclosure would it is improper to use it to arbitrarily withhold public information.

Key Citations

G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26(f) District Attorney for the Norfolk District v. Flatley WBZ-TV v. District Attorney for the Suffolk District Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Retirement Board Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Ct., 457 U.S. 596 (1982) Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court (No. 84-1560) (1986)