Shahzad Khan v. Chelmsford, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20251830)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 8, 2025 SPR25/1830 Samantha Murnane Records Clerk Chelmsford Police Department Town of Chelmsford Chelmsford, MA 01824 Dear Ms. Murnane: I have received the petition of Shahzad Khan appealing the response of the Chelmsford 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 22, 2025, Mr. Khan requested, “[a] police report for a 911 call made around Oct[ober] 2021…[involving] [an identified individual] at [a specified address].” Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/1587 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 6, 2025). In my June 6th determination, I learned that the Department provided Mr. Khan with a subsequent response. The Department responded on June 6, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Khan petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1830, 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

Samantha Murnane SPR25/1830 Page 2 July 8, 2025 It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. See 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. See 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. Status of the Requestor Please note that under the Public Records Law the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Mr. Khan’s status will play no role in a determination as the whether the records should be disclosed or withheld under the Public Records Law. The Department’s June 6th Response In its June 6, 2025 response, the Department stated, “[t]he report requested was a medical/mental health call…and there was a Vacate order…attached to the appeal…Due to this order and that the report is medical/mental health related the [D]epartment denied the request due to it being a medical and to prevent an invasion of personal privacy.” Current Appeal In his June 25, 2025 appeal to this office, Mr. Khan requested the following relief: [1] Instruct the [Department] to release 911 report in full…[;] [2] Alternatively, [i]nstruct the Department to release a redacted version of the 911 report, preserving factual content while protecting personal medical details[;] [3] Clarify that full denial is inappropriate where the vacate order was issued under G.L. c. 208, § 34B…[;] [4] Recognize that the benefit of releasing the report outweighs any confidentiality concerns…

Samantha Murnane SPR25/1830 Page 3 July 8, 2025 This office has reviewed the trial court’s docket and verified that the requested records relate to civil litigation which is active and ongoing in the Middlesex Family and Probate Court. See Hira Ishtiaq v. Shahzad A. Khan, (Middlesex Probate and Family Court Docket No. M125D1323DR). Active Litigation 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. In light of the active litigation, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Additionally, I decline to opine on the applicability of Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to the requested records. It should be noted that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Shahzad Khan