Christopher Weeks v. Framingham, City of - Police Department (SPR 20251138)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 6, 2025 SPR25/1138 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 17, 2025, Mr. Weeks requested records related to 16 identified incident call numbers. Specifically, he requested: [1] All police reports (including supplemental reports, investigative notes, and any associated case files). [2] All internal communications related to these incidents, including emails, memos, and reports exchanged between officers, investigators, and other officials. [3] All cell phone text messages exchanged between responding officers, supervisors, and other involved personnel regarding these calls. [4] All dispatch logs, CAD (computer-aided dispatch) records, and radio communications associated with each incident. [5] Any body-worn camera footage, dashcam footage, or surveillance footage related to these calls. [6] The names of all callers who reported these incidents. If any caller was a public employee, their identity cannot be redacted under public records law. [7] Any and all other records related to these incidents that may not have been explicitly listed above. 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, SPR25/1138, was opened as a result. 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 SPR25/1138 Page 2 May 6, 2025 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 can confirm that the Department did not provide a formal cover letter or meaningful correspondence alongside the responsive records…. Throughout this process, the Framingham Police Department has routinely issued responses that are vague, improperly cross-referenced to unrelated requests, and lacking in transparency. They have repeatedly conflated multiple distinct record requests, often asserting—without explanation or documentation—that one request was ‘fulfilled’ by the response to another. This tactic has made it extremely difficult to determine what has actually been produced, what has been withheld, and on what basis. The Department’s March 31st Response In its March 31, 2025 response, the Department produced records with redactions. 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; Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90

Colleen Kehew SPR25/1138 Page 3 May 6, 2025 (1979) (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). Accordingly, the Department’s response did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. The Department has not cited an exemption for redacting the responsive records. The Department must clarify this matter. 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. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Christopher Weeks