Christopher Weeks v. Framingham, City of - Police Department (SPR 20251562)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 13, 2025 SPR25/1562 Colleen Kehew Department Records Access Officer 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. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/1138 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (May 6, 2025). In my May 6th determination, I found that the Department’s response did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. Specifically, I ordered the Department to cite the exemption it used to redact responsive 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 SPR25/1562 Page 2 June 13, 2025 records provided to Mr. Weeks. The Department responded on June 3, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Weeks petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1562, was opened as a result. Subsequently, the Department provided a supplemental response on June 10, 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. The Department’s June 3rd and June 10th Responses In its June 3, 2025 response, the Department cited Exemptions (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law to redact responsive records. However, in its June 10, 2025 supplemental response, the Department states it made redactions to the responsive records only under Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. 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

Colleen Kehew SPR25/1562 Page 3 June 13, 2025 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 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, 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 June 10th supplemental response, the Department states: The Department would like to clarify that the redactions made to the responsive records for this request were to protect any and all identifying information of witnesses, protected under exemption F of the public records law: Exemption F – Witness | The witness exemption states ‘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.’ Information may be withheld to provide an assurance of confidentiality to private citizens so that they will speak openly about matters under investigation. Accordingly, any details in witness statements, which if released create a grave risk of directly or indirectly identifying a private citizen who volunteers as a witness are indefinitely exempt. Where the City redacted identifying information of voluntary witnesses, I find the City may properly redact such information pursuant to Exemption (f). 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

Colleen Kehew SPR25/1562 Page 4 June 13, 2025 jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Christopher Weeks