Christopher Weeks v. Framingham, City of - Police Department (SPR 20251571)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 18, 2025 SPR25/1571 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 January 24, 2025, Mr. Weeks requested the following records from January 1, 2019 to the present: [1] Police Records: [a] All police reports, calls for service, and incident reports related to any interactions or complaints involving [an identified individual] or any related individuals or locations known to be connected . . .[;] [b] Internal memos, documents, and communications . . . between officers, supervisors, and external agencies concerning [an identified individual’s] interactions with the department[;] [c] Any records pertaining to arrests, charges, or investigations involving [an identified individual] or incidents [an identified individual] reported[;] [2] Animal Control Records: [a] All records, reports, complaints, or documentation related to interactions or investigations conducted by Framingham Animal Control involving [an identified individual] or any animals under [an identified individual’s] care[;] [b] Internal communications . . . related to the handling of animal-related complaints or incidents involving [an identified individual] or individuals connected . . .[;] [3] General . . . : [a] Any policies, procedures, or training materials regarding the handling of animal control complaints and enforcement of animal-related ordinances[;] 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 SPR25/1571 Page 2 June 18, 2025 [b] Logs, schedules, or notes documenting interactions between Animal Control officers, police officers, and other Framingham town officials in relation to incidents involving [an identified individual][;] [c] Records of public complaints, investigations, or resolutions involving Framingham Animal Control and Police Department officers that mention [an identified individual] or directly relate to incidents involving [an identified individual]. Previous Appeal The request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/1097 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (May 6, 2025). In my May 6th determination, I ordered the Department to clarify its claims under Exemption (a) and G. L. c. 119, § 60A, and Exemptions (c) and (f) for redacting some of the responsive records, and additionally clarify its claims under Exemption (a) and CORI for withholding other records responsive to the request. I additionally found that the Department confirmed that all responsive records have been provided. Subsequently, the Department responded on May 22, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Weeks appealed, and this case, SPR25/1571, was opened as a result. Subsequently, the Department provided additional information regarding this appeal to this office on June 5, 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 May 22nd and June 5th Responses In its May 22, 2025 response, among other things, the Department provided additional information regarding its claims under Exemption (a) and G.L. c. 119, § 60A, and Exemptions (c) and (f) for redacting the responsive records it provided in previous responses.

Colleen Kehew SPR25/1571 Page 3 June 18, 2025 Additionally, subsequent to the opening of this appeal, in an email to this office dated June 5, 2025, a representative of the Department stated, “[t]his requestor has requested [‘]all records[’] pertaining to him, which have been provided to him. Additional explanations of exemptions used in redactions for each of his previous requests have also been provided. The . . . Department considers his requests fulfilled.” Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Weeks states, “[a]s of today, I have not received any new or complete records in response to [the previous determination]. Instead, I have received what appear to be recycled or partially redacted copies, vague references to prior responses, and no meaningful effort to comply with the Supervisor’s findings. . . .” Exemption (a) Exemption (a), known as the statutory exemption, permits the withholding of records that are: specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). A governmental entity may use the statutory exemption as a basis for withholding requested materials where the language of the exempting statute relied upon expressly or necessarily implies that the public’s right to inspect records under the Public Records Law is restricted. See Att’y Gen. v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 154 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-546 (1977). This exemption creates two categories of exempt records. The first category includes records that are specifically exempt from disclosure by statute. Such statutes expressly state that such a record either “shall not be a public record,” “shall be kept confidential” or “shall not be subject to the disclosure provision of the Public Records Law.” The second category under the exemption includes records deemed exempt under statute by necessary implication. Such statutes expressly limit the dissemination of particular records to a defined group of individuals or entities. A statute is not a basis for exemption if it merely lists individuals or entities to whom the records are to be provided; the statute must expressly limit access to the listed individuals or entities. Records of Youthful Offender In its previous response, the Department provided one record with redactions and cited, “M.G.L. c. 4, §7(26) (a) through G.L. c. 119, § 60A for material pertaining to a juvenile” in support of its redactions.

Colleen Kehew SPR25/1571 Page 4 June 18, 2025 G. L. c. 119, § 60A provides in pertinent part: The records of a youthful offender proceeding conducted pursuant to an indictment shall be open to public inspection in the same manner and to the same extent as adult criminal court records. All other records of the court in cases of delinquency arising under sections fifty-two to fifty-nine, inclusive, shall be withheld from public inspection except with the consent of a justice of such court; provided, however, that such records shall be open, at all reasonable times, to inspection by the child proceeded against, his parents, guardian or attorney; provided further, that nothing herein shall be construed to provide access to privileged or confidential communications and information; and provided further, that said protections shall be construed to include information and communications entered at the indictment. G. L. c. 119, § 60A. In its May 22, 2025 response, the Department provided a copy of an email chain indicating that it provided two additional redacted records and cited “Exemption (a) – JUVENILE” in support of its redactions. The Department additionally stated the following: JUVENILE: This appeal asks us to justify our decision to redact information under the juvenile exemption and provide context to what was redacted. In one report provided to Mr. Weeks . . . , the narrative was redacted in order to protect the name, age, address, statement, and other information which directly pertained to the care and protection of a minor child. Information on [an identified individual] and all other adults involved was left unredacted. Although the Department states that it redacted, “the name, age, address, statement, and other information which directly pertained to the care and protection of a minor child[,]” from one of the responsive records, it remains unclear how the redacted information constitutes the type of record in a case “of delinquency arising under sections fifty-two to fifty-nine,” as required under G. L. c. 119, § 60A. Regarding the two additional redacted records that the Department provided, which it indicated were redacted under “Exemption (a) – JUVENILE[,]” it is additionally uncertain what information had been redacted from the records, and how the redacted information falls within the type of records contemplated under the statute cited above. Consequently, I find that the Department has not met its burden to redact the responsive records under G. L. c. 119, § 60A as it operates through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. The Department must clarify these matters.

Colleen Kehew SPR25/1571 Page 5 June 18, 2025 Exemption (c) Exemption (c) permits the withholding of: personnel and medical files or information and any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; provided, however, that this subclause shall not apply to records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Analysis under Exemption (c) is subjective in nature and requires a balancing of the public’s right to know against the relevant privacy interests at stake. Torres v. Att’y Gen., 391 Mass. 1, 9 (1984); Att’y Gen. v. Assistant Comm’r of Real Prop. Dep’t, 380 Mass. 623, 625 (1980). Therefore, determinations must be made on a case-by-case basis. This exemption does not protect all data relating to specifically named individuals. Rather, there are factors to consider when assessing the weight of the privacy interest at stake: (1) whether disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities; (2) whether the materials sought contain intimate details of a highly personal nature; and (3) whether the same information is available from other sources. See People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280, 292 (2017). The types of personal information which this exemption is designed to protect includes: marital status, paternity, substance abuse, government assistance, family disputes and reputation. Id. at 292 n.13; see also Doe v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 415, 427 (1988) (holding that a motor vehicle licensee has a privacy interest in disclosure of his social security number). This exemption requires a balancing test, which provides that where the public interest in obtaining the requested information substantially outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy, the private interest in preventing disclosure must yield. PETA, 477 Mass. at 291. The public has a recognized interest in knowing whether public servants are carrying out their duties in a law-abiding and efficient manner. Id. at 292. In its May 22, 2025 response, the Department stated the following under Exemption (c): The Department redacted dates of birth, personal phone numbers, and contact information, as stated in our initial response to the requestor. While disclosure of the information would not “result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities,” as the appeal suggests, exemption C also protects “…data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy….” This Department routinely redacts Personally Identifiable Information (PII) under exemption C; we do not

Colleen Kehew SPR25/1571 Page 6 June 18, 2025 consider public interest in this information to outweigh the invasion of privacy in the majority of cases. To the extent that the records contain personal phone numbers, I find the Department may permissibly withhold such portions from disclosure under Exemption (c). However, based on the Department’s response, it is unclear how the remaining redacted information, including contact information and dates of birth, may be withheld from disclosure. Particularly, it is uncertain how the information constitutes intimate details of a highly personal nature, nor how disclosing the information constitutes “an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” Id. At 294- 95. The Department must clarify. 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 289-290. 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. 59 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.

Colleen Kehew SPR25/1571 Page 7 June 18, 2025 In its May 22, 2025 response, the Department stated the following under Exemption (f): The law states that “The legislature also designed the exemption to allow investigative officials to provide an assurance of confidentiality to private citizens so that they will speak openly about matters under investigation. 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.” Therefore, the Department redacted witness names, contact information, statements, and identifying information in order to prevent any requestors from identifying a private citizen as a witness. To the extent that the responsive police reports contain information identifying voluntary witnesses, the Department may permissibly withhold such portions from disclosure under Exemption (f). Accordingly, I find the Department has met its burden to redact the responsive records under Exemption (f). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Weeks with a response to his 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