Christopher Weeks v. Framingham, City of - Police Department (SPR 20251120)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 6, 2025 SPR25/1120 Paul J. Iversen Records Access Officer City of Framingham 150 Concord Street, Room B-37 Framingham, MA 01702 Dear Mr. Iversen: I have received the petition of Christopher Weeks appealing the response of the City of Framingham (City) 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, “[i]ncident #22-006263 (Burger King, Cochituate Rd) & Related Calls[.] I request complete and unrestricted access to all records related to the following incidents involving me … at Burger King (259 Cochituate Rd, Framingham, MA): [1] The full police report, including any supplementary reports. All officer narratives, notes, and witness statements. Any body-worn camera (BWC) footage or dashboard camera footage. Any and all communications (emails, text messages, radio transmissions, CAD logs) related to this incident, including those between responding officers and their supervisors. Names and badge numbers of all responding officers, including [two identified individuals]. [2] Any calls for service, incident reports, or dispatch logs related to a prior removal request from Burger King involving me. All associated officer reports, communications, and body-worn camera footage. [3] All internal documents, emails, text messages, and investigative materials related to the handling of my civil rights complaint regarding this incident. Any findings, conclusions, or recommendations made by [an identified individual] or any other officers involved in the investigation. Any correspondence between the Framingham Police Department and external agencies regarding this matter. The City responded on April 22, 2025, providing records in redacted form. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Weeks petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1120, was 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

Paul J. Iversen SPR25/1120 Page 2 May 6, 2025 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: The Internal Affairs report I received via email was deliberately redacted to the point of illegibility, including significant sections being entirely blacked out and others faded so severely that they are unreadable…. The report was not provided through the public records portal but instead sent directly via email by Ms. Kehew. This tactic not only obstructs proper recordkeeping and transparency but prevents me from tracking the fulfillment status of my request within the official system. Ms. Kehew then closed the portal request as “Withdrawn” without my consent or confirmation, which falsely records that the request was fulfilled and misrepresents the process…. No legal basis has been provided for the extent of redactions, nor for the suppression of names, case numbers, or investigative findings that are of public interest and crucial to litigation. The City’s April 22nd Response In its April 22, 2025 response, the City produced records and stated, “[d]ue to the privacy information contained in this report, I am electing to send it to you directly via email rather than

Paul J. Iversen SPR25/1120 Page 3 May 6, 2025 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 City 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 City 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, where Mr. Weeks raises concerns over not receiving responsive records through the City’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 that the Department has met its burden in responding to the request. Conclusion Accordingly, the City 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. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Christopher Weeks