Rachel Kadis v. Bridgewater, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20252390)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 27, 2025 SPR25/2390 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.” Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/2259 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 13, 2025). In my August 13th determination, I found that the Department did not meet its burden to withhold the responsive records in their entirety under Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. The Department responded on August 13, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Kadis petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2390, 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 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 SPR25/2390 Page 2 August 27, 2025 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 August 13th response In its August 13, 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 Bridgewater Police Department’s justification for withholding records, claiming disclosure could ‘alert the defendant’ or ‘harm the legal process,’ and citing ‘witness privacy’ does not constitute a lawful basis for denial under Massachusetts Public Records Law (G.L. c. 66, § 10(a)). The Department has provided only generalized assertions and has failed to identify specific records or explain how disclosure would prejudice a legitimate law enforcement or judicial interest…. Importantly, formal charges have already been filed against me, meaning that any alleged ‘investigation’ by the Department is no longer active. As such, the Department’s assertion that disclosure could interfere with ongoing investigative efforts is legally and factually incorrect. Furthermore, I was able to personally obtain the full case file, including [an identified individual’s] report, witness interviews, and witness names directly from the Brockton District Courthouse. This demonstrates that the records are not genuinely confidential under CORI, investigative privilege, or any statutory exemption. The Department’s refusal to provide these same records to me is therefore arbitrary, capricious, and in clear violation of my rights under Massachusetts law….

Meredith Roselli SPR25/2390 Page 3 August 27, 2025 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 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;

Meredith Roselli SPR25/2390 Page 4 August 27, 2025 • 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 response, the Department stated, “[a]ll the records Ms. Kadis is requesting reflect an ongoing investigation in which she is now the defendant and is facing charges in upcoming court proceedings. Any information relating to this ongoing investigation could alert the defendant of information that could harm the legal process[.] The disclosure of records could affect witness Privacy[.]” Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear how the responsive records constitute investigatory materials. Also, the Department states that the requested records “. . . reflect an ongoing investigation . . .[,]” but it does not explain the subject of the investigation nor does it describe how the requested records are part of the investigation. Further, it is not clear 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). It is additionally uncertain how the records cannot be redacted to preserve the anonymity of voluntary witnesses. The Department must clarify these matters. In addition, the Department did not identify the records, categories of records or portions of records in its possession that it intends to withhold from disclosure. To deny access to a record under the Public Records Law, a records access officer must identify the record, categories of records, or portions of the record it intends to withhold. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3)(c)(4). Therefore, the Department must identify the record(s) it has in its possession that the Department withheld under Exemption (f). 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).

Meredith Roselli SPR25/2390 Page 5 August 27, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Rachel Kadis