Kathy Souza v. Somerset, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20252499)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 5, 2025 SPR25/2499 William Tedford Chief of Police Somerset Police Department 465 County Street Somerset, MA 02726 Dear Chief Tedford: I have received the petition of Kathy Souza appealing the response of the Somerset 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 August 6, 2025, Ms. Souza requested, “…all recorded and written video of interviews and conversations, phone calls and any other communication with the Amazon employee, and any family members or spokespersons for the employee who took my cat. Report number 25-824-of. Amazon report number A1Ejykks63molr.” The Department responded on August 15, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. Souza petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2499, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the Department provided supplemental responses on August 30, 2025 and September 4, 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. 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

William Tedford SPR25/2499 Page 2 September 5, 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 Department’s August 15th, August 30th, and September 4th Responses In its August 15, 2025 response, the Department stated, “[t]he Somerset Police Department has provided lobby recordings via a secure download link. Please be advised, no redactions were made to this footage. In reference to all other records requested, these materials will be sent upon review of the Town’s legal team as it involves a third party in a non-criminal matter.” In a supplemental response on August 30, 2025, the Department cited Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold the remaining responsive records. In an email to this office on September 4, 2025, the Department clarified: Specifically… materials we seek to withhold [are:] [1] Body camera footage, audio and video, recorded by Somerset Police Officers in their interactions with police witnesses in this matter. [2] Telephone call recordings between Somerset Police Officers and police witnesses in this matter. All other materials requested have been provided to the requestor. In a telephone conversation with this office on September 4, 2025, the Department further clarified that the withheld records constitute statements and interviews with voluntary civilian witnesses whose identities are known by Ms. Souza. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Souza stated, “[t]he Department claimed the matter was a ‘non-criminal’ incident involving a third party. This rationale is not a valid exemption under the Public Records Law… The Somerset Police Department has failed to cite or justify a lawful exemption, improperly withheld entire categories of records, and ignored the requirement to release segregable portions.” In a follow-up email on September 2, 2025, Ms. Souza argued against the applicability of Exemption (f) to the remaining responsive records.

William Tedford SPR25/2499 Page 3 September 5, 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;

William Tedford SPR25/2499 Page 4 September 5, 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. Under Exemption (f), the Department stated: The Somerset Police Department has reviewed this appeal, SPR25/2499, further in light of applicable legal requirements and balancing the confidentiality of voluntary witness information as part of a law enforcement investigation… With respect to the remaining police records which directly reveal the identity of a voluntary witness to the underlying law enforcement investigation, after individual review of the records, the Police Department is withholding the records under Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law…. Where such police records contain identifying details regarding voluntary witnesses and complainants, as is the case here, who are known to the requestor, such information, will be withheld pursuant to Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. The Police Department wants to ensure that individuals involved police investigations cooperate with police investigators as part of their law enforcement duties. The disclosure of the requested materials based on the Police Department’s careful review, even with redaction, would publicly disclose the identity of the individual involved, who is known to the requestor in this instance and would be detrimental to future law enforcement investigations. This is particularly the case in this incident since it is the Police Department’s understanding that this matter is also under review by Amazon, the employer of the voluntary witness involved at this time. Based on the Department’s response, where the Department claims the responsive records contain identifying information of civilian complainants and voluntary witnesses who are known to the requestor, I find that the Department has sufficiently demonstrated how disclosure of the records, even with redaction, would compromise effective law enforcement by discouraging the cooperation of individuals who require assurances of confidentiality so that they will cooperate with investigations (the “chilling effect”). Consequently, the Department has met its burden to withhold the requested records under Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Ms. Souza is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares

William Tedford SPR25/2499 Page 5 September 5, 2025 jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Kathy Souza