Christopher Weeks v. Framingham, City of - Police Department (SPR 20251096)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 6, 2025 SPR25/1096 Colleen Kehew Department RAO Framingham Police Department 1 William Welch Way Framingham, MA 01702 Dear Ms. Kehew: I have received the petition of Christopher Weeks appealing the response of the Framingham 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 March 24, 2025, Mr. Weeks requested: copies of all public records related to the investigation conducted by [an identified individual] regarding my complaint alleging a violation of my First Amendment right to free speech. This investigation pertains to an incident that occurred on September 4, 2022, involving citation number R7281438 and the officer with badge number 329. I request the following records: [1] All Internal Communications: Emails, reports, notes, and memoranda related to this investigation. Communications between [an identified individual] and any other officers, supervisors, or city officials regarding this matter. Any documentation, drafts, or final reports created or reviewed during the investigation. [2] Police-Issued Cell Phone Communications: Text messages, call logs, and any other electronic communications regarding this investigation between all officers involved. This includes, but is not limited to, communications between Lieutenants, the Chief, the Acting Chief, and any officers with knowledge of or involvement in the case. [3] All Reports and Findings: A full copy of any investigative reports, summaries, or findings prepared by [an identified individual]. Copies of any determinations, decisions, or conclusions reached regarding the allegations. [4] List of Involved Officers and Officials: Please include communications involving the following individuals: [an identified individual], Chief of Police (at the time of the investigation and currently), Acting Chief (if applicable), Any 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

Colleen Kehew SPR25/1096 Page 2 May 6, 2025 supervisors involved in reviewing the investigation, Any other officers or administrative staff who had access to or contributed to the investigation[.] The Department responded on March 31, 2025, providing records in redacted form. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Weeks petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1096, was 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. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Weeks states: I recently received one of the internal affairs reports I had requested—specifically relating to a retaliatory traffic stop incident—but it was not delivered through the portal. Instead, the Records Manager … elected to send the document directly to my email and then closed the request herself, labeling it as ‘withdrawn.’ This was done without my consent… She cited ‘privacy and medical information’ as the reason for bypassing the portal, yet that data was already redacted…. I am still missing the second internal affairs report—the one involving the Burger King ADA violation—despite it being long past due. I have received no extension notice, no explanation, and no indication that they are even processing it…. I’m respectfully asking your office to: [] Instruct the Framingham Police Department to repost the internal affairs report through the portal with proper justification for

Colleen Kehew SPR25/1096 Page 3 May 6, 2025 any redactions[.] The Department’s March 31st Response In its March 31, 2025 response, the Department produced records and stated, “[d]ue to the privacy and medical information contained in this report, I am electing to send it to you directly via email rather than post it on the public portal. I will therefore close the portal request, as it has been responded to here. (You will receive an email indicating this request has been ‘Withdrawn’ now that it is considered closed.)” The Department is advised that under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be on the custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption to withhold or redact records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based”). See also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511. Accordingly, where the Department redacted the responsive records without citing an exemption, its response did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. Additionally, based on Mr. Weeks’ appeal, it is unclear if the Department possesses the second internal affairs report that Mr. Weeks is requesting. The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). To the extent that responsive records exist, I find the Department must provide them in a manner consistent with the Public Records Law or identify an exemption that applies to withhold the records from disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b). Further, where Mr. Weeks raises concerns over not receiving responsive records through the Department’s portal, it is unclear what the basis of his appeal is. Mr. Weeks is advised that a records access officer must, to the extent feasible, provide public records to a requestor in electronic format unless the record is not available in electronic form or the requestor does not have the ability to receive or access the records in electronic format and if feasible, in the requestor’s preferred format. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5)(d). Where Mr. Weeks has received an electronic copy of the responsive records, I find the Department has met its burden to responding to the request. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Weeks 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.

Colleen Kehew SPR25/1096 Page 4 May 6, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Christopher Weeks