Stanley Mazurczyk v. Chelmsford, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20252173)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 7, 2025 SPR25/2173 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 Appeals This request was the subject of prior appeals. See SPR25/1756 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 25, 2025) and SPR25/1890 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 15, 2025). In my July 15th determination, I found that the Department had not met its burden to withhold an audio recording in its entirety under Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. The Department responded on July 23, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Mazurczyk petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2173, 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 SPR25/2173 Page 2 August 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 July 23rd Response In its July 23, 2025 response, the Department reiterated its position that the responsive audio recording was exempt in its entirety pursuant to Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. Current Appeal In his July 24, 2025 petition to this office, Mr. Mazurczyk characterized the Department’s response as out of compliance with 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. 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

Samantha Murnane SPR25/2173 Page 3 August 7, 2025 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 July 23rd response, the Department stated: To clarify, there is not a segregable portion of the voicemail as the caller begins speaking just before the 1 second mark of the recording and continues speaking through the entire recording. While the recording is of poor quality, in the Department’s opinion, the audio would reveal the identity of the caller. Based on the Department’s response, and where disclosure of any portion of the responsive record would directly or indirectly identify a complainant or voluntary witness, I find the Department has met its burden under Exemption (f) to withhold the responsive record in its entirety. See Antell, 52 Mass. App. Ct. at 248 (redactions may be appropriate under Exemption (f) where they serve to preserve the anonymity of voluntary witnesses). Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Mazurczyk 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 of Massachusetts. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Stanley Mazurczyk