Cape Cod Times v. Sheriff of Barnstable County

Citations: 443 Mass. 587; 33 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2499; 823 N.E.2d 375; 2005 Mass. LEXIS 97

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court; March 8, 2005; Massachusetts; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The case involves the interpretation of G. L. c. 66. 10, the public records law, concerning whether the Barnstable County sheriff must allow the Cape Cod Times to inspect records of individuals appointed as 'reserve deputy sheriffs.' The sheriff has denied access, arguing that the records were created in a personal capacity and thus not classified as 'public records.' He also claims the records belong to the Barnstable County Deputy Sheriffs Association, a private entity exempt from public records statutes. Furthermore, the sheriff argues that disclosing the records would infringe on privacy rights as outlined in G. L. c. 4. 7, Twenty-sixth (c).

A Superior Court judge ruled that the records pertain to the association and are not public, granting summary judgment in favor of the sheriff. The newspaper's appeal led to the case being transferred for further review. The court concluded that the requested records were 'made or received' by the sheriff, a public official, thus qualifying them as public records under G. L. c. 4. 7, Twenty-sixth. The court found no applicable exemptions that would shield the records from public inspection.

The background indicates that the sheriff's office is a public elected position, with Sheriff James M. Cummings having taken office in January 1999. He replaced the previous practice of appointing 'honorary' deputy sheriffs with a structured system for appointing 'reserve deputy sheriffs,' who are not law enforcement officers. Over one hundred reserve deputy sheriffs have been appointed, with responsibilities outlined in official communications from the sheriff's office. The appointment process involves background checks conducted by sheriff's office employees, further implicating the public nature of the records in question.

The background check process for appointing reserve deputy sheriffs involves a review by the special sheriff and two association officers, culminating in a recommendation to the sheriff, who makes the final appointment decision. Successful candidates receive a notification letter, an oath of public trust, a photographic identification card from the sheriff’s office, and the option to purchase a badge identifying them as deputy sheriffs. The sheriff administers an oath during a ceremonial event without legal implications. The Barnstable County Deputy Sheriffs Association includes all deputy sheriffs, honorary members, reserve deputy sheriffs, and volunteer deputy sheriffs. Its purpose is to support non-political interests of the Sheriff’s Office and the association, including the sheriff's youth ranch, with the special sheriff serving as vice-president.

A legal dispute arose when a newspaper sought access to records related to reserve deputies, which the sheriff refused, claiming they were "private." It is acknowledged that these records fall under the public records laws, as they are maintained by a public employee in the sheriff's office. The central issue is the sheriff's ability to deny inspection based on his assertion of privacy. The public records law mandates access to records in the custody of public employees, with limited exemptions. The law defines public records broadly, establishing a presumption of public access, placing the burden on the custodian to prove any claimed exemptions. The sheriff's arguments that the records were created in a personal capacity or that they belong to the association do not withstand scrutiny under the presumption of production outlined in the statute.

The Barnstable County sheriff holds the authority to appoint reserve deputy sheriffs as part of his official duties, and these appointments are not made in a personal capacity. Reserve deputy sheriffs serve at the discretion of the sheriff, not at the discretion of any private individual, including Citizen Cummings, who will lose this authority upon leaving office. The real party in interest regarding the appointment records is the Barnstable County sheriff’s office, not Cummings personally.

The sheriff contends that resources used during the appointment process primarily belong to an association and that his involvement is unpaid, making the resource expenditure minimal. However, this does not alter the fact that these actions are official acts carried out in his capacity as a public official. Consequently, the records related to the appointments are defined as public records under G. L. c. 4. 7, Twenty-sixth, and must be made available for inspection unless a specific exemption applies.

The sheriff's argument that the records belong to the Barnstable County Deputy Sheriffs Association is flawed, as the association does not appoint reserve deputy sheriffs. The newspaper's request for the names and addresses of reserve deputy sheriffs is directed solely at the sheriff, not the association. Furthermore, the volunteer status of reserve deputy sheriffs does not exempt their records from public disclosure, as public records laws facilitate access to information about individuals connected to public officials.

The sheriff's assertion that the records do not serve a public purpose or are personal to him lacks merit, as these records are inherently linked to his official role and are not personal documents. Therefore, the appointment and supervision records of reserve deputy sheriffs do qualify as public records under the law. The inquiry continues to determine if any exceptions to the public records law exist that would exclude these names and addresses from public access or if their disclosure poses an unlawful invasion of privacy.

The sheriff argues that disclosing the names and addresses of reserve deputy sheriffs would violate their privacy rights under G. L. c. 4, § 7, Twenty-Sixth (c). However, the court finds this argument unpersuasive, stating that the law only protects against the disclosure of "intimate details" of a highly personal nature, which does not include names and addresses. The sheriff's claim of potential liability under G. L. c. 214, § 1B, is also deemed unfounded, as the protections offered by G. L. c. 4, § 7, Twenty-sixth (c) are broader. The court emphasizes that constitutional privacy rights do not prevent the disclosure of names and addresses of individuals appointed by a public official. The requested records are deemed public and must be made available for inspection. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings. The document also notes the historical context of sheriffs' employment status in Massachusetts, detailing changes in governance and funding for sheriffs across various counties.

General Laws c. 37 delineates the authority and responsibilities of sheriffs, including the appointment of special and deputy sheriffs. A special sheriff can act on behalf of the sheriff in cases of illness or absence. Sheriffs have the authority to appoint deputies, who must be sworn in to perform any official acts. Sheriff Cummings has appointed both employees and non-employees, including civil process servers and law enforcement personnel, as deputy sheriffs. Some individuals, such as visiting dignitaries, have been designated as "honorary" deputy sheriffs, while many non-employee deputies have been "grandfathered" in, retaining the title without official swearing or police powers. These reserve deputy sheriffs are described as having an honorary status without civil or public office implications. The sheriff's authority to appoint reserve deputies is recognized as part of his public office powers. 

General Laws c. 37. 13 allows sheriffs to enlist suitable aid in their duties, and General Laws c. 269. 1 mandates that sheriffs and their deputies disperse unlawful assemblies. The documentation does not detail the swearing-in ceremony for reserve deputies, though it is noted that they possess no official powers until called upon. The sheriff's office operates a youth ranch, which has transitioned under the sheriff's direct oversight since Sheriff Cummings took office. 

A newspaper has requested to inspect records containing the names and addresses of reserve deputy sheriffs, having narrowed its request after initially seeking broader access. The sheriff does not raise any exceptions under the statute that would apply to the records requested, indicating a waiver of such claims. The statute outlines additional exceptions regarding various types of records that are not applicable in this instance.

The sheriff contends that public records laws apply solely to documents generated by individuals in an 'official capacity,' a term defined in Federal court pleadings that allows successors in vacated public offices to be substituted for predecessors (Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25 (1991)). Evidence indicates that the sheriff is acting in his official capacity when appointing reserve deputy sheriffs. The court does not address the sheriff's claim regarding the use of office resources for a private association, as it is not pertinent to the case. General Laws c. 214. 1B grants individuals the right to protection against significant privacy invasions, while General Laws c. 12. 111 permits civil actions for violations of constitutional rights. The ruling does not affect the privacy rights of law enforcement personnel, who are protected under G. L. c. 66. 10 (d), which ensures that the home addresses and phone numbers of various public safety and criminal justice personnel are not considered public records. The sheriff asserts that reserve deputy sheriffs do not perform law enforcement functions.