Namu Sampath v. Longmeadow, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20251415)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 3, 2025 SPR25/1415 Carolyn Lee Administrative Assistant Longmeadow Police Department 34 Williams Street Longmeadow, MA 01106 Dear Ms. Lee: I have received the petition of Namu Sampath, of The Republican/MassLive, appealing the response of the Longmeadow 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 May 12, 2025, Ms. Sampath requested, [1] All police reports filed against [an identified individual] for trespassing in Longmeadow between 2000 and present day[.] [2] Any and all police reports filed against [an identified individual] for racist comments made to residents or anyone else between 2000 and present day[,] The Department responded on May 16, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Sampath petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1415, 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 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

Carolyn Lee SPR25/1415 Page 2 June 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 Department’s May 16th Response In its May 16, 2025 response, the Department cited Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law in support of the redactions to the requested record. Current appeal In her appeal, Ms. Sampath asserts, “... the department withheld the name and address of the complainant under Exemption (f).... The attached record is from 2014. Unless the department’s investigation is still ongoing, I am unsure if the department has demonstrated enough of a prejudice to its investigative efforts to withhold that information. I am appealing this decision with the Secretary of State’s Office and am hoping a supervisor can weigh in on whether this exemption is allowed.” 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. As a matter of course, witness provided information is essential to efficient and effective

Carolyn Lee SPR25/1415 Page 3 June 3, 2025 law enforcement. This exemption is intended to allow investigative officials to provide an assurance of confidentiality to private citizens so that they will speak openly and voluntarily about matters. Bougas, 371 Mass at 62. Any information contained in a witness statement, which if disclosed would create a grave risk of directly or indirectly identifying the voluntary witness is subject to withholding Globe Newspaper Co., 388 Mass. at 438. The disclosure of the names and other identifying information of victims, complainants and voluntary witnesses may deter other potential witnesses and citizens from providing information to law enforcement agencies in future investigations. Therefore, Exemption (f) will allow the withholding of the name and identifying details of any victims, complainants and voluntary witnesses, and where the individuals can be indirectly identified even with redaction. In its May 16, 2025 response, the Department states, “[i]n response to your request, the Longmeadow Police Department has one report on file involving [an identified individual] trespassing and/or making racist comments. The requested report is attached to this email. Please be advised that our department has redacted the name and address of the complainant listed in the report under Exemption F of the Mass Public Records Law. Exemption F allows an agency to redact direct or indirect identifiers (e.g. name, address) of individuals who voluntarily speak with police. This is essential to preserve public cooperation and investigatory integrity.” Based on the Department’s response, where the Department redacted the identifying information of a complainant, I find the Department may permissibly withhold that information under Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Ms. Sampath is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, §10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Namu Sampath