Joe Sciacca v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20252212)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 12, 2025 SPR25/2212 Grace Jung Director of Public Records City of Boston 1 City Hall Square, Room 615 Boston, MA 02201 Dear Ms. Jung: I have received the petition of Joe Sciacca, of 7News WHDH‐TV Boston, appealing the response of the City of Boston (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On April 29, 2025, Mr. Sciacca requested, “[v]ideo footage from on- board cameras on school bus involved in accident on Monday April 28, 2025 at approximately 2:44 pm near the intersection of Washington Street and Glenwood Avenue. Please include footage starting at least ten minutes prior to the accident and concluding ten minutes after the accident.” The City provided a response on May 2, 2025, assigning the request reference number R002165-042925. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Sciacca petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2212, 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). 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. Att’y 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. 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

Grace Jung SPR25/2212 Page 2 August 12, 2025 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 City’s May 2nd Response In its May 2, 2025 response, the City cited Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested records in their entirety. Current appeal In his appeal, Mr. Sciacca contends that “... the investigative exemption cited in the denial is invalid because the requested video was recorded in plain view and not compiled out of public view. I know that this material is being sought in legal action as well ...” 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.” 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 w (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

Grace Jung SPR25/2212 Page 3 August 12, 2025 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 May 2nd response, the City stated, The records you seek are withheld pursuant to Exemption F of the Public Records Law because the records requested are part of an open and ongoing investigation. A records custodian may withhold records concerning investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of public view by law enforcement officials where the disclosure of such materials would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that releasing the records is not in the public interest. See G.L. c.4, § 7(26) (f). A records custodian is obligated to provide segregable portions of records where possible. See Globe Newspaper Co. v. Exec. Office of Admin. and Fin., Suffolk Sup. No. 11-01184- A (June 14, 2013). However, providing segregable portions of the requested records are not possible without revealing confidential investigative techniques, procedures, or sources of information. Withholding this record in its entirety is necessary at this time to prevent interference with internal investigatory proceedings.

Grace Jung SPR25/2212 Page 4 August 12, 2025 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. This office has reviewed the trial court’s docket and verified that the civil litigation, relating to the records that are the subject of Mr. Sciacca’s request, is active and ongoing in the Massachusetts Superior Court. See Andrea Edmond, et. al. v. Transdev Services, Inc., et. al., filed in Suffolk Superior Court, Docket Number 2584CV01989. In light of the pending matter, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Consequently, I decline to opine on the applicability of Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law to the requested records. Please note 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: Joe Sciacca