David Webb v. Worcester, City of - Law Department (SPR 20252760)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 29, 2025 SPR25/2760 Janice E. Thompson, Esq. Assistant City Solicitor Law Department City of Worcester 455 Main Street, Room 301 Worcester, MA 01608 Dear Attorney Thompson: I have received the petition of David Webb appealing the response of the City of Worcester (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 1, 2025, Mr. Webb requested “Bwc and report regarding the incident involving a death on King Philip Rd the night of August 31st into September 1st 2025.” The City responded on September 8, 2025, assigning the request reference number W076513-090525. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Webb petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2760, 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. 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

Janice E. Thompson, Esq. SPR25/2760 Page 2 September 29, 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 September 8th Response In its September 8, 2025 response, the City cited Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold the responsive records. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Webb stated, “[t]his is a matter of public record, that involves multiple neighbors, and the lack of transparency from the department in regards to ongoing vehicular deaths is concerning.” 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. at 290 n.18. 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

Janice E. Thompson, Esq. SPR25/2760 Page 3 September 29, 2025 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. Under Exemption (f), the City stated, “[t]he incident remains under active investigation, and the responsive record contains victim/witness statements and identifying information relating to the victim/witness of this incident. Disclosure of this information would compromise the integrity of the investigation and impede law enforcement from effectively carrying out its duties.” 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. Although the identifying information of voluntary witnesses and complainants may be withheld, it is unclear from the City’s response how the responsive records may be withheld in their entirety under Exemption (f). It is also not clear whether the responsive records contain confidential investigative techniques that would be prejudicial to an ongoing investigation if disclosed. Further, the City 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 should be noted that any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). See Reinstein, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). The City must clarify these matters.

Janice E. Thompson, Esq. SPR25/2760 Page 4 September 29, 2025 Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Webb with a response to the request, provided 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. Mr. Webb may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: David Webb Michael Vigneux