Stanley Mazurczyk v. Chelmsford, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20251890)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 15, 2025 SPR25/1890 Samantha Murnane Records Access Officer Chelmsford Police Department 2 Olde North Road Chelmsford, MA 01824 Dear Ms. Murnane: I have received the petition of Stanley Mazurczyk 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 June 16, 2025, Mr. Mazurczyk requested “… all records filed in [a June 16, 2025 well-being check].” Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR25/1756 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 25, 2025). In my June 25th determination, I found that the Department had met its burden to withhold an individual’s social security number under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law, but that it had not met its burden to withhold an individual’s date of birth. Further, I found that it was unclear whether the Department possessed additional responsive records. The Department responded on June 27, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Mazurczyk petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1890, 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 SPR25/1890 Page 2 July 15, 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. Status of the Requestor; Reason for the Request Please note that 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 G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Therefore, Mr. Mazurczyk’s purpose in making the request has no bearing on the public status of any existing responsive records. The Department’s June 27th Response In its June 27, 2025 response, the Department provided Mr. Mazurczyk with a responsive “Q-sheet” and redacted an individual’s social security number pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. The Department informed Mr. Mazurczyk that it was withholding a responsive audio recording pursuant to Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law, in order to preserve the anonymity of voluntary witnesses. Current Appeal In his June 30, 2025 petition to this office, Mr. Mazurczyk contended that Exemption (f) did not permit withholding of the responsive record, where the audio recording concerned a “… frivolous use of the police to frustrate, intimidate, etc.” 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

Samantha Murnane SPR25/1890 Page 3 July 15, 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.” Id. 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. Redactions may be appropriate where they serve to preserve the anonymity of the complainant and voluntary witnesses. Antell, 52 Mass. App. Ct. at 248; Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 290 n.18; 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 Supreme Judicial Court has held that “the inquiry as to what constitutes identifying information regarding an individual must be considered not only from the viewpoint of the public, but also from the vantage of those who are familiar with the individual and his [or her] career.” Id. at 438. In its June 27th response, the Department stated: Here, the Department has determined that withholding is appropriate to preserve the anonymity of voluntary witnesses. In the Department’s opinion, release of the phone call would likely identify the witness who made the call, discouraging future calls from this individual to the Department. In this way, release of the call “would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest.” Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289–90 (1979). To the extent that the responsive record contains the identifying information of voluntary witnesses, the Department may permissibly withhold such portions from disclosure pursuant to Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. However, it is unclear how disclosure of any segregable portion of the responsive record “would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest[,]” as required to withhold records under Exemption (f). See Reinstein, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Any non-exempt, segregable

Samantha Murnane SPR25/1890 Page 4 July 15, 2025 portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). The Department must clarify this matter. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Mazurczyk with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten 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. Mr. Mazurczyk may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Stanley Mazurczyk