Jason Graziadei v. Nantucket, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20252833)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 6, 2025 SPR25/2833 Marina Dzvonik Administrative Assistant Nantucket Police Department 4 Fairgrounds Road Nantucket, MA 02554 Dear Ms. Dzvonik: I have received the petition of Jason Graziadei, of the Nantucket Current, appealing the response of the Nantucket 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, Mr. Graziadei requested, “...CAD entry and a recording of the call/threat received by the Nantucket Communications Center at 19:11 on 8/5/25, as noted in the public log: 19:11 ... St Finished/Clear-Report Required Suspicious Activity (SUS).” Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR25/2579 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 12, 2025). In my September 12th determination, I found that it was unclear how the responsive records can be withheld under Exemption (f) in their entirety. Further, I found that the Department did not demonstrate how disclosure of any segregable portion of the withheld records would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest. The Department responded on September 25, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Graziadei petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2833, 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

Marina Dzvonik SPR25/2833 Page 2 October 6, 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. Current appeal In his appeal, Mr. Graziadei requested the following: [1] Reconsider its broad application of Exemption (f); [2] Conduct a segregability analysis and release all non-exempt portions of responsive records; [3] At minimum, provide redacted versions of the CAD report and incident log, the two audio recordings of the threat being made, along with any other materials that can be disclosed without jeopardizing investigative integrity. The Department’s September 25th Response In its September 25, 2025 response, the Department identified the records in its possession as follows: [1] Nantucket Police CAD Activity Detail report, Call 25-008841[;] [2] Nantucket Police Incident report, Case 25-008841[;] [3] Nantucket Police Supplemental report, Case 25-008841[;] [4] Audio recordings of calls, 2 min 47 sec and 1 min 24 sec[;] [5] Photographs, case 25-008841[.] The Department provided 6 pages of the CAD Activity Detail Report with redactions. The Department cited Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law in support of the redactions to the requested records and the withholding of other requested records. Exemption (f) Exemption (f) permits the withholding of: investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of the public view by law

Marina Dzvonik SPR25/2833 Page 3 October 6, 2025 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. The Supreme Judicial Court has stated that Exemption (f) aims at “the avoidance of premature disclosure of the Commonwealth’s case prior to trial, the prevention of the disclosure of confidential investigative techniques, procedures, or sources of information, the encouragement of individual citizens to come forward and speak freely with police concerning matters under investigation, and the creation of initiative that police officers might be completely candid in recording their observations, hypotheses and interim conclusions.” Bougas, 371 Mass. at 62; cited with approval in Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289. 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):

Marina Dzvonik SPR25/2833 Page 4 October 6, 2025  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. In its response, the Department advised that the matter remains under investigation and stated as follows: The items sought (the CAD entry and a recording of the call/threat received by the Nantucket Communications Center at 19:11 on 8/5/25) are connected to an ongoing investigation regarding a bomb threat with serious public alarm. The Nantucket Police Department is confirming that the investigation into this matter is ongoing and involves multiple investigative entities including FBI. It is the Department’s position that disclosing the requested record prior to the investigation’s conclusion is likely to harm the ongoing investigation efforts by the Nantucket Police Department and/or other investigative entities. In particular, disclosing audio recordings of the calls at this time is likely to jeopardize the cooperation of witnesses, hinder investigative efforts by revealing potential leads, lead to interim conclusions that may change based on additional facts that are gathered over the course of the ongoing investigation. Where the investigation has not concluded, releasing the requested material that is connected to the investigation at this stage is premature and could impact the Nantucket Police Department and other entities’ ability to carry out a thorough and reliable investigation. While the investigation remains ongoing, the potential prejudice of interference with the Department’s ability to conduct its investigation dictates that disclosure of materials is not in the public interest. The Department’s position is supported by Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law in not releasing information related to ongoing investigations. . . . Here, due to the severity of the case (bomb threat with serious public alarm) that is currently under investigation, the Department appropriately denies the Request.

Marina Dzvonik SPR25/2833 Page 5 October 6, 2025 Where the requested records pertain to an ongoing investigation and its disclosure “. . . is likely to jeopardize the cooperation of witnesses [and] hinder investigative efforts,” I find the Department may permissibly withhold the responsive record from disclosure under Exemption (f) at this time. Please be aware that the change in the status of the investigation could impact the applicability of Exemption (f). Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Graziadei is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jason Graziadei