David Webb v. Worcester, City of (SPR 20252826)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 8, 2025 SPR25/2826 Michael Vigneux Records Access Officer Law Department City of Worcester 455 Main Street, Room 303 Worcester, MA 01608 Dear Mr. Vigneux: 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 August 22, 2025, Mr. Webb requested “footage from [a specified] officer . . . at the response to the ‘shots fired’ incident on Strathmore Road.” The City responded on September 8, 2025, and assigned reference number W075979- 082525 to this request. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Webb petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/2826, 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

Michael Vigneux SPR25/2826 Page 2 October 8, 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. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Webb contends that “the city responded, citing an exemption based on an ongoing investigation, however the investigation is of the marshals and state police, not Worcester.” The City’s September 8th Response In its September 8, 2025 response, the City states that it is withholding records pursuant to Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f). 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. 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

Michael Vigneux SPR25/2826 Page 3 October 8, 2025 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. In its response, under Exemption (f), the City argues the following: The requested record is exempt from disclosure pursuant to exemption (f). Exemption (f), the investigatory exemption, applies to “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.” The incident remains under active investigation by the Massachusetts State Police and the District Attorney’s Office, as required by 555 CMR 6.09. The requested record contains witness statements and investigatory material compiled by the Worcester Police Department, which constitute evidentiary material in an open investigation. Disclosure of this record would compromise the integrity of the investigation and impede law enforcement from effectively carrying out its duties. Based on the information provided in the City’s response, although the City states that the requested records are associated with an ongoing investigation, it does not explain the subject of the investigation. Also, the City did not demonstrate how disclosure of the withheld records “would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest,” as required to withhold records under Exemption (f). It is additionally uncertain how the records can be withheld in their entirety. See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90 (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). The City must explain whether the records can be redacted to protect the identities of voluntary witnesses, so that segregable portions can be provided. 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 further appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Michael Vigneux SPR25/2826 Page 4 October 8, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: David Webb Janice E. Thompson, Esq.