Christopher Weeks v. Framingham, City of - Police Department (SPR 20251572)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 13, 2025 SPR25/1572 Paul J. Iversen Records Access Officer City of Framingham 150 Concord Street, Room B-37 Framingham, MA 01702 Dear Mr. Iversen: I have received the petition of Christopher Weeks appealing the response of the City of Framingham (City) 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 the following: [I]ncident #22-006263 (Burger King, Cochituate Rd) & Related Calls[.] I request complete and unrestricted access to all records related to the following incidents involving me … at Burger King (259 Cochituate Rd, Framingham, MA): [1] The full police report, including any supplementary reports. All officer narratives, notes, and witness statements. Any body-worn camera (BWC) footage or dashboard camera footage. Any and all communications (emails, text messages, radio transmissions, CAD logs) related to this incident, including those between responding officers and their supervisors. Names and badge numbers of all responding officers, including [two identified individuals]. [2] Any calls for service, incident reports, or dispatch logs related to a prior removal request from Burger King involving me. All associated officer reports, communications, and body-worn camera footage. [3] All internal documents, emails, text messages, and investigative materials related to the handling of my civil rights complaint regarding this incident. Any findings, conclusions, or recommendations made by [an identified individual] or any other officers involved in the investigation. Any correspondence between the Framingham Police Department and external agencies regarding this matter. 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

Paul J. Iversen SPR25/1572 Page 2 June 13, 2025 Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/1120 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (May 6, 2025). In my May 6th determination, I found that the City’s response did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. Specifically, I ordered the City to cite the exemption it used to redact responsive records provided to Mr. Weeks. The City responded on June 3, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Weeks petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1572, was opened as a result. Subsequently, the City provided a supplemental response on June 12, 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 12th 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 12, 2025 supplemental response, the Department stated 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

Paul J. Iversen SPR25/1572 Page 3 June 13, 2025 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 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. In its June 12th supplemental response, the City states: The [City] 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).

Paul J. Iversen SPR25/1572 Page 4 June 13, 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)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Christopher Weeks