Scooty Nickerson v. Bridgewater, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20251819)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 9, 2025 SPR25/1819 Meredith Roselli Office Administrator Public Records Access Officer Bridgewater Police Department 220 Pleasant Street Bridgewater MA 02324 Dear Ms. Roselli: I have received the petition of Scooty Nickerson, of the Boston Globe, appealing the response of the Bridgewater 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 May 7, 2025, Scooty Nickerson requested, [a]ll publicly releasable documentation in the case file related to the financial fraud of [an identified] victim, who was duped by Indian scammers into sending money abroad. [An identified individual] was scammed in March 2023, and the scammers were arrested in India by November 2023 by local authorities. The detective who worked the case in Bridgewater was [an identified] Detective. Part of the case involved [identified] victim depositing around $50k into a Bitcoin ATM machine. The incident has been written about in foreign publications, including the Times of India. The Department responded on May 16, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Scooty Nickerson petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1819, 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). 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

Meredith Roselli SPR25/1819 Page 2 July 9, 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 May 16th response In its May 16, 2025 response, the Department cited Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold the responsive records in their entirety. Current appeal In the appeal, Scooty Nickerson states, “I'd like to appeal this record request denial from the Bridgewater Police Department, the first request for which I sent on May 7. My request for police reports related to an international scam case was denied on the grounds that there is an ongoing police investigation into the scam. However, the incident has been written about broadly, and many people have been arrested related to the incidents ... Given that several individuals have been arrested, some records should be releasable related to this request.” 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-

Meredith Roselli SPR25/1819 Page 3 July 9, 2025 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, 371 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. v. Boston Ret. Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 438 (1983). 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. To properly claim that Exemption (f) applies, a custodian must demonstrate that the disclosure of the records would have a prejudicial effect on its investigative efforts. This can be accomplished by describing how the records fall into one of three categories. These are the three categories that justify withholding records under Exemption (f): • The records reflect an ongoing investigation, such that any information relating to an ongoing investigation that could potentially alert suspects or targets to the activities of investigative officials; • The records reflect internal techniques, procedures, or sources, such that their disclosure would prejudice not only ongoing, but future law enforcement efforts; or • Disclosure of records would cause a chilling effect, because the exemption allows investigative officials to provide an assurance of confidentiality to individuals so that they will speak openly about matters under investigation. Such records in this third category include: any details in statements that directly or indirectly identify a private citizen who volunteers as a witness; an entire statement if the identity of witnesses is known to the requestor; and information voluntarily provided by an individual or entity to aid in the investigation. In its response, the Department stated, “[w]hile this exemption is not a blanket exemption, it applies to such information, the disclosure of which would prejudice investigative efforts. It applies to information related to ongoing investigations, confidential investigative techniques and information which directly or indirectly identifies witnesses or informants. The records requested contain information that is still under investigation. As a result, such information must be withheld under the law.”

Meredith Roselli SPR25/1819 Page 4 July 9, 2025 Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear how disclosure of the requested records would prejudice investigative efforts, disclose any confidential investigative techniques, procedures or sources of information. Further, it is unclear how all the records are related to the ongoing investigation. Any nonexempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Also, it is unclear how the records in their entirety can be withheld under Exemption (f). Specifically, the Department did not demonstrate how disclosure of any segregable portion of the responsive records “would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest[,]” as required under Exemption (f). It is additionally uncertain how the records cannot be redacted to preserve the anonymity of voluntary witnesses. The Department must clarify these matters. Further, based on the Department’s response, it is unclear what types of records it possesses that it is withholding from disclosure. To deny access to a record under the Public Records Law, a records access officer must identify the record, categories of records, or portions of the record it intends to withhold. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3)(c)(4). Here, the Department withheld responsive records without identifying each of the records. Therefore, the Department must identify the record(s) it has in its possession that the Department withheld under Exemption (f). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Scooty Nickerson with a response 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. Scooty Nickerson may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Scooty Nickerson