Rachel Kadis v. Bridgewater, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20252630)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 17, 2025 SPR25/2630 Meredith Roselli Public Records Access Officer Bridgewater Police Department 220 Pleasant St. 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 August 22, 2025, Ms. Kadis requested “... copies of any and all records in the custody of the Bridgewater Police Department pertaining to interactions between myself ... and members of law enforcement from May 1 to July 30.” Specifically, Ms. Kadis sought: [1] All call logs, incident reports, and records of communications referencing or involving [an identified individual][;] [2] Video and/or audio recordings from the Bridgewater Police Department lobby and the public interview room that contain interactions involving [an identified individual] and law enforcement personnel[; ] [3] Any associated notes, reports, or documentation connected to the above. The Department responded on September 4, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Kadis petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2630, 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

Meredith Roselli SPR25/2630 Page 2 September 17, 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. Current appeal In her appeal, Ms. Kadis stated: I respectfully submit that this denial is improper and inconsistent with both the language and intent of the Massachusetts Public Records Law. The Department’s invocation of CORI is overly broad. CORI is limited to records “compiled by a criminal justice agency which concern an identifiable individual and relate to the nature or disposition of a criminal charge” (G.L. c. 6, § 167). Internal affairs materials regarding police officers’ conduct are not CORI. The fact that I am a defendant in a criminal matter does not transform internal administrative records into protected CORI ... The Public Records Law requires custodians to release all reasonably segregable portions of a record (950 CMR 32.08(4)). Even if some portions of the requested records were legitimately exempt, the Department is still required to provide redacted copies of non-exempt material ... The Department’s September 4th response In its September 4, 2025 response, the Department cited Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law to withhold items 1 through 3 of Ms. Kadis’ request. Exemption (a) Exemption (a), known as the statutory exemption, permits the withholding of records that are: specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a).

Meredith Roselli SPR25/2630 Page 3 September 17, 2025 A governmental entity may use the statutory exemption as a basis for withholding requested materials where the language of the exempting statute relied upon expressly or necessarily implies that the public's right to inspect records under the Public Records Law is restricted. See Attorney Gen. v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 54 (1979); Ottaway -- Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-46 (1977). This exemption creates two categories of exempt records. The first category includes records that are specifically exempt from disclosure by statute. Such statutes expressly state that such a record either "shall not be a public record," "shall be kept confidential" or "shall not be subject to the disclosure provision of the Public Records Law." The second category under the exemption includes records deemed exempt under statute by necessary implication. Such statutes expressly limit the dissemination of particular records to a defined group of individuals or entities. A statute is not a basis for exemption if it merely lists individuals or entities to whom the records are to be provided; the statute must expressly limit access to the listed individuals or entities. In its response, the Department cited the Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) which provides in pertinent part as follows: “Criminal offender record information,” records and data in any communicable form compiled by a Massachusetts criminal justice agency which concern an identifiable individual and relate to the nature or disposition of a criminal charge, an arrest, a pre-trial proceeding, other judicial proceedings, previous hearings conducted pursuant to section 58A of chapter 276 where the defendant was detained prior to trial or released with conditions under subsection (2) of section 58A of chapter 276, sentencing, incarceration, rehabilitation, or release. Such information shall be restricted to information recorded in criminal proceedings that are not dismissed before arraignment. Criminal offender record information shall not include evaluative information, statistical and analytical reports and files in which individuals are not directly or indirectly identifiable, or intelligence information. Criminal offender record information shall be limited to information concerning persons who have attained the age of 18 and shall not include any information concerning criminal offenses or acts of delinquency committed by any person before he attained the age of 18; provided, however, that if a person under the age of 18 was adjudicated as an adult in superior court or adjudicated as an adult after transfer of a case from a juvenile session to another trial court department, information relating to such criminal offense shall be criminal offender record information. . . . G. L. c. 6, § 167. In its response, the Department stated, “[t]he Department intends to withhold the following requested records:”

Meredith Roselli SPR25/2630 Page 4 September 17, 2025 [1] All reports, narratives, incident logs, or supplemental documentation referencing or submitted by [an identified individual] from May 1 to May 31, 2025. [2] All lobby and public interview room surveillance video and audio from the following dates and times: May 7, 2025 – between 6:40 p.m. and 7:10 p.m. May 16, 2025 – between 4:00 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. May 18, 2025 – between 8:30 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. In its response, the Department further asserted, “[t]he records requested contain information related to a criminal investigation and subsequent charges as follows:” [1] All the records being requested specifically relate to an ongoing investigation, charges, and current active litigation, including reports, video footage and witness statements[;] [2] These records, in their entirety, are directly related to an active court case in which you are the defendant and were arraigned on 8/22/25. The charges are larceny over $1,200 by false pretense c266 34 & 30, Receiver, embezzlement/Misapplication by c266 55 and conspiracy c274 7[;] [3] The Case name is Commonwealth Vs. Rachel M Kadis[;] [4] The court docket number is 2515CR002737[.] 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. In light of the pending matter, Commonwealth v. Rachel M Kadis filed in Brockton District Court, Docket No. 2515CR002737, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). I also decline to opine on the applicability of Exemption (a) 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).

Meredith Roselli SPR25/2630 Page 5 September 17, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Rachel Kadis