Rachel Kadis v. Bridgewater, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20252259)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 13, 2025 SPR25/2259 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 Rachel Kadis 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 July 4, 2025, Ms. Kadis requested, “any available surveillance footage from the Bridgewater Police Department for the following dates and times: May 7, 2025 – between 6:40 PM and 7:00 PM [and] May 16, 2025 – between 4:00 PM and 5:00 PM[.] I am specifically seeking footage from the lobby area and the interview room, if video recordings exist for those spaces during the stated periods. This request is being made for personal/legal purposes.” The Department responded on July 7, 2025, withholding responsive records under Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f). Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Kadis petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2259, was opened as a result. Status of Requestor In her appeal petition, Ms. Kadis states that “I am the subject of the records and have a direct, vested interest in accessing them.” 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 Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Ms. Kadis’ status will play no role in a determination as to whether the record should be disclosed or redacted under the Public Records Law. 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 SPR25/2259 Page 2 August 13, 2025 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. 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 7th response In its July 7, 2025 response, the Department cited Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold the responsive records in their entirety. Current appeal In her appeal, Ms. Kadis states, “the records requested pertain to a criminal matter in which charges have already been filed, and disclosure at this stage would not prejudice ongoing investigative efforts. I am not seeking sensitive or tactical information, but rather the factual basis (e.g., incident reports or statement of facts) underlying the charges against me. Transparency is essential in ensuring accountability, and I respectfully request a review of the withholding decision.” 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).

Meredith Roselli SPR25/2259 Page 3 August 13, 2025 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 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.

Meredith Roselli SPR25/2259 Page 4 August 13, 2025 In its response, the Department stated, “[t]he records requested contain an incident currently under investigation[.] The records requested contain legally withheld information. As a result, such information must be withheld under the law. 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). The Department must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Kadis 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. Ms. Kadis 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: Rachel Kadis