Christopher Weeks v. Framingham, City of - Police Department (SPR 20251462)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 5, 2025 SPR25/1462 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 SPR25/1462 Page 2 June 5, 2025 supervisors involved in reviewing the investigation, Any other officers or administrative staff who had access to or contributed to the investigation[.] Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/1096 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (May 6, 2025). In my May 6th determination, I found that the Department needed to cite an exemption to redact responsive records and that its response did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. The Department responded on May 22, 2025, providing records in redacted form. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Weeks petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1462, 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: [The Department] asserts that the second Internal Affairs report at issue was provided to me on April 22, 2025. While I acknowledge receipt of the document in question, the version that was released contains unlawful redactions that render the record incomplete and non-compliant with Massachusetts Public Records Law. Specifically, the redactions obscure the names of public officials acting in their official capacity, as well as non-exempt narrative content that is essential to understanding the substance and context of the investigation…

Colleen Kehew SPR25/1462 Page 3 June 5, 2025 The Department’s May 22nd Response In its May 22, 2025 response, the Department produced records and stated, “upon reviewing our records, I was able to determine that this report was already provided to Mr. Weeks on 4/22/2025. I have attached a copy of the email chain with the records that were sent.” Addressed in Separate Appeal It is my understanding that the subject matter of this request and the issues raised in Mr. Weeks’ appeal concerning the “second Internal Affairs report” were addressed in SPR25/1120 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (May 6, 2025). Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Weeks 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, § 10(b) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Christopher Weeks