Christopher Weeks v. Framingham, City of - Police Department (SPR 20251814)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 7, 2025 SPR25/1814 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 June 10, 2025, Mr. Weeks requested all text messages between an identified police officer and Mr. Weeks. Specifically, he requested: [T]he full and unredacted record of all text messages exchanged between [an identified individual] and myself … between the dates of January 1, 2022 and the present, sent or received through any official, City-issued or City-funded communication device assigned… This request includes all SMS, MMS, iMessage, and any other text-based communications, regardless of the device or messaging platform used… The Department responded on June 23, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Weeks petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1814, was opened as a result. Subsequently, the Department provided a supplemental response on June 26, 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). 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 SPR25/1814 Page 2 July 7, 2025 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 23rd Response In its June 23, 2025 response, the Department provided records responsive to Mr. Weeks’ request. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Weeks states, “[t]he Department responded by merely returning screenshots of communications I previously provided as evidence, while refusing to produce the complete and unredacted record of our exchanges, which I know exist, as I initiated and received these messages in real time. This is deliberate, retaliatory, and unlawful conduct, and I am requesting your urgent intervention and enforcement.” No Duty to Create Records Please note that the duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). Further, under the Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). However, in accordance with the Public Records Law, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). In an email to a staff attorney of the Public Records Division on June 26, 2025, the Department asserted, “[t]he Framingham Police Department has provided all responsive records it was able to locate for this request which are in our custody or control, none of which were redacted or withheld.” Conclusion Where the Department confirmed that it does not possess additional records responsive to Mr. Weeks’ request, and has no duty to create records responsive to the request, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Weeks is not satisfied with the resolution of

Colleen Kehew SPR25/1814 Page 3 July 7, 2025 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