Live Boston v. Springfield, City of (SPR 20250164)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 3, 2025 SPR25/0164 Stephen G. Roche, Esq. Second Associate City Solicitor City of Springfield 36 Court Street, Room 210 Springfield, MA 01103 Dear Attorney Roche: I have received the petition of Live Boston appealing the response of the City of Springfield (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 7, 2025, Live Boston requested “the police report, booking photo(s) and Body footage from the incident related to [a specified hyperlink]. As for the BWC we are happy to narrow the scope to just the primary officer from initial contact until transport of the suspects.” The City responded on January 13, 2025 and assigned reference number 25-58 to this request. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Live Boston petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/0164, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the City provided a further response to this office and Live Boston on January 29, 2025. In subsequent emails, Live Boston reiterated their objections to the City’s responses. 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, § 10A(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 agency or municipality of the 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, § 10(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 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

Stephen G. Roche, Esq. SPR25/0164 Page 2 February 3, 2025 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, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. The City’s January 13th and January 29th Responses In its January 13, and January 29, 2025 responses, the City states that it is withholding responsive records pursuant to Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f). 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. Att’y 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-by- case 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. In its January 13th response, under Exemption (f), the City argues the following: The Springfield Police Department (SPD) has advised us that there is an active investigation of this incident. As you know, the incident occurred on January 1, 2025, and resulted in one arrest. The release of the records you requested, even in their redacted form, would compromise the integrity of the investigation process by revealing confidential information, the identity and contact information of witnesses, police

Stephen G. Roche, Esq. SPR25/0164 Page 3 February 3, 2025 investigatory techniques, and other sensitive law enforcement information. This information could compromise future law enforcement activities related to the investigation and prevention of crime. The integrity of the investigative process is vital, which is why these materials are gathered and secured out of public view. In its January 29th response, the City further argues the following in support of its claims under Exemption (f): The incident in question occurred in the early hours of January 1, 2025.The incident involved multiple gun shots being detected which resulted in a car chase after occupants in a nearby location drove away quickly when the police arrived. The police pursued the vehicle with 2 occupants and one of them ran when the vehicle stopped. The other occupant was arrested. Two guns and ammunition were seized. The individual arrested is facing 10 charges, including 4 felonies. [The 2nd Associate City Solicitor] personally reviewed the police records and body worn camera (BWC) footage for this incident. This incident is an open investigation and includes the possibility of more arrests of persons involved in this incident, including the person who ran from the car when it was stopped. The weapons seized include an AR-15 and a fill. [sic] As you know, our state and the nation are seeing rising numbers of gun incidents. The Springfield Police Department’s Firearms Investigation Unit (FIU) is conducting a thorough and intense investigation to locate the source of the weapons and find other persons who should be arrested. . . . Releasing any records of this incident at this time would absolutely interfere with the FIU investigation! Based on the City’s response, although portions of the responsive records may fall under Exemption (f), it is uncertain how the records can be withheld in their entirety. The City must explain whether the records can be redacted so that segregable portions can be provided. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90 (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Live Boston with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us.

Stephen G. Roche, Esq. SPR25/0164 Page 4 February 3, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Live Boston