Joseph W. Ford v. Attleboro, City of - Police Department (SPR 20251074)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 23, 2025 SPR25/1074; SPR25/1075 Lisa Towne Records Access Officer Attleboro Police Department 12 Union Street Attleboro, MA 02703 Dear Ms. Towne: I have received the petition of Joseph Ford appealing the response of the Attleboro Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On April 11, 2025, Mr. Ford sought, in two separate requests, the following records related to a November 26, 2024 incident: SPR25/1074 [1] Audio recordings of any 911 calls or non-emergency calls received by the Attleboro Police Department from Thacher Elementary School staff or administrators on November 26, 2024, regarding allegations of assault involving students and staff. If audio recordings are no longer available, please provide all available transcripts, dispatcher notes, or CAD logs (Computer Aided Dispatch) showing the content, date, and time of such calls … [2] Any internal dispatch communication logs, radio transmissions, or text logs involving dispatchers and responding officers tied to the school’s report or departmental response to the incident … [3] Any metadata showing the exact time calls were placed by the school to law enforcement and the time officers were dispatched or assigned to the case. SPR25/1075 [1] All incident reports, arrest reports, officer notes, and internal investigative documentation, including: [a] Accounts of both incidents (approx. 11:55 a.m. and 1:00 p.m.)[;] 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

Lisa Towne SPR25/1074; SPR25/1075 Page 2 April 23, 2025 [b] Timeline of notification from school officials (noted as approx. 4:30 p.m.)[;] [c] Interviews with school staff, administrators, and witnesses[;] [d] Statements made by [an identified individual] during or after her arrest on December 9, 2024[;] [2] Any and all body-worn camera footage or audio from: [a] Interviews conducted at Thacher Elementary[;] [b] The arrest of [an identified individual] in Kingston, MA[;] [3] Names and badge numbers of all responding officers and investigators involved in this case[;] [4] Copies of any affidavits, court filings, or warrant documents prepared or submitted by your department[;] [5] Any communication between the Attleboro Police Department and Attleboro Public Schools from November 26 to December 10, 2024 related to these incidents[.] On April 17, 2025, the Department provided two responses. Unsatisfied with the Department’s responses, Mr. Ford petitioned this office and these appeals, SPR25/1074 and SPR25/1075, were opened as a result. 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 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.

Lisa Towne SPR25/1074; SPR25/1075 Page 3 April 23, 2025 The Department’s April 17th Responses In its April 17, 2025 responses, the Department informed Mr. Ford that it was withholding responsive records pursuant to Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. The Department further stated that criminal litigation arising from the subject incident remained active and ongoing. Current Appeal In his April 17, 2025 petition to this office, Mr. Ford objected to the Department’s citation of Exemption (f), and requested that non-exempt portions of the records be released. 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, 371 Mass at 62. 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.” Id. at 289-90. This office has reviewed the trial court’s docket and confirmed that the requested records are the subject of active and ongoing litigation in Attleboro District Court. See Commonwealth v. Susan M. Martin (District Court Docket No. 2434CR002765). Pending Litigation 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor:

Lisa Towne SPR25/1074; SPR25/1075 Page 4 April 23, 2025 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. In light of the pending litigation, I decline to opine on these matters at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). I further decline to opine on the applicability of Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law to the requested records. It should be noted that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Joseph Ford