Kristen Fellini v. Chelmsford, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20252911)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 20, 2025 SPR25/2911 Samantha Murnane Records Access Officer Chelmsford Police Department 2 Olde North Road Chelmsford, MA 01824 Dear Ms. Murnane: I have received the petition of Kristen Fellini appealing the response of the Chelmsford 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 September 8, 2025, Ms. Fellini requested the following records: Any and all records . . . that reference [an identified individual] . . . . To include all police reports, traffic reports, calls for medical service, incident reports & correspondences by any form of communication such as written, video, messaging, emails, etc for any date and time. Please include any 911 audio regarding the calls for service for each incident listed. The Department responded on September 16, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Fellini petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2911, 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 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

Samantha Murnane SPR25/2911 Page 2 October 20, 2025 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. The Department’s September 16th Response In its September 16, 2025 response, the Department provided “12 reports and one QSheet” with redactions and cited Exemptions (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law in support of its redactions. The Department additionally indicated it was withholding numerous other responsive records pursuant to Exemptions (a), (c), and (f), and further stated that it is no longer in possession of “911 audio for the reports provided except for the Motor Vehicle Accident on 12/11/24[.]” Current Appeal In her October 3, 2025 appeal petition, Ms. Fellini contends that the Department’s response employed an “[o]verbroad [u]se of Exemption [(a)] (Statutory/ CORI/ Juvenile / Domestic Reports)” in withholding responsive records. She further notes that she also objects to the Department’s “[m]isapplication of Exemption [(c)]” and “[o]veruse of Exemption [(f)]” to redact some responsive records and withhold others. Upon review of the appeal, it appears Ms. Fellini is not objecting to the Department’s claims that it no longer possesses “911 audio for the reports provided” other than the 911 audio responsive to “the Motor Vehicle Accident on 12/11/24[.]” 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). 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 Att’y 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

Samantha Murnane SPR25/2911 Page 3 October 20, 2025 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. G. L. c. 41, § 97D In its September 16, 2025 response, the Department cited G. L. c. 41, § 97D, operating under Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law, to withhold responsive records. The statute provides the following in relevant part: All reports of rape and sexual assault or attempts to commit such offenses, all reports of abuse perpetrated by family or household members, as defined in section 1 of chapter 209A, and all communications between police officers and victims of such offenses or abuse shall not be public reports and shall be maintained by the police departments in a manner that shall assure their confidentiality… G. L. c. 41, § 97D. In its response, the Department stated, “[t]wenty-seven (27) reports cannot be released based upon . . . Exemption A due to being domestic in nature.” The Department advised that withholding the 27 responsive reports “is vital in protecting the party information involved.” Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear how the above 27 reports fall within the type of records contemplated in G. L. c. 41, § 97D. The Department merely cites the statute without any further explanation as to the statute’s applicability to the responsive records. A records custodian is required to not only cite an exemption but to specifically explain the applicability of the exemption to the requested records for compliance with the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv). Further, it is unclear how the records may be withheld in their entirety. 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 v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). The Department must clarify these matters. Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) Act The Department additionally indicated in its response that it is withholding records responsive to the request under CORI as it operates through Exemption (a). The current definition of CORI is as follows:

Samantha Murnane SPR25/2911 Page 4 October 20, 2025 “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. Criminal offender record information shall not include information concerning any offenses which are not punishable by incarceration. G. L. c. 6, § 167. In its response, under CORI, Department stated, “[t]here are nine (9) reports and three (3) Q-Sheets that are criminal in nature and contain CORI information that cannot be released based upon . . . Exemption A.” Moreover, the Department indicated, “[t]he nine records and three Q- Sheets in question are criminal cases, and it is vital in protecting Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI). Therefore, [the Department is] required by statu[t]es to withhold these records. . . .” Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear how the responsive “nine (9) reports and three (3) Q-Sheets” may be withheld under CORI as it operates through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. Specifically, it is not clear how the withheld records constitute “information recorded in criminal proceedings that are not dismissed before arraignment.” See G. L. c. 6, § 167. It is additionally unclear if the Department could provide segregable portions of the responsive records. Any non-exempt segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). The Department must clarify. Records of Youthful Offender The Department also cited G. L. c. 119, § 60A, operating under Exemption (a), to withhold additional responsive records. G. L. c. 119, § 60A provides in pertinent part:

Samantha Murnane SPR25/2911 Page 5 October 20, 2025 The records of a youthful offender proceeding conducted pursuant to an indictment shall be open to public inspection in the same manner and to the same extent as adult criminal court records. All other records of the court in cases of delinquency arising under sections fifty-two to fifty-nine, inclusive, shall be withheld from public inspection except with the consent of a justice of such court; provided, however, that such records shall be open, at all reasonable times, to inspection by the child proceeded against, his parents, guardian or attorney; provided further, that nothing herein shall be construed to provide access to privileged or confidential communications and information; and provided further, that said protections shall be construed to include information and communications entered at the indictment. G. L. c. 119, § 60A. In its response, under G. L. c. 119, § 60A, a representative for the Department stated that the Department is withholding “ten (10) reports that are juvenile in nature” and further claimed, “[b]ecause . . . these records are juvenile in nature they were withheld as required by statute to protect the juveniles involved.” Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear how the responsive records are the type contemplated under G. L. c. 119, § 60A. Specifically, it is unclear how the withheld records constitute records in a case “of delinquency arising under sections fifty-two to fifty-nine,” as required by the statute. It is additionally whether segregable portions can be provided. See Reinstein, 378 Mass at 289-90. The Department must clarify this. Exemption (c) Exemption (c) permits the withholding of: personnel and medical files or information and any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; provided, however, that this subclause shall not apply to records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). First Clause – Medical Medical information that is of a personal nature and relates to a specifically named individual may be exempt from disclosure. Brogan v. Sch. Comm. of Westport, 401 Mass. 306, 308 (1987); Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Ret. Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 438 (1983). Generally, medical information is sufficiently personal to warrant exemption. Globe Newspaper Co., 338 Mass. at 432-34. There is a strong public policy in Massachusetts that favors confidentiality as to medical data about a person’s body. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Chief Med. Exam’r, 404 Mass. 132, 135 (1987).

Samantha Murnane SPR25/2911 Page 6 October 20, 2025 Second Clause - Privacy Analysis under the second clause of Exemption (c) is subjective in nature and requires a balancing of the public’s right to know against the relevant privacy interests at stake. Torres v. Att’y Gen., 391 Mass. 1, 9 (1984); Att’y Gen. v. Assistant Comm’r of Real Prop. Dep’t, 380 Mass. 623, 625 (1980). Therefore, determinations must be made on a case-by-case basis. This clause does not protect all data relating to specifically named individuals. Rather, there are factors to consider when assessing the weight of the privacy interest at stake: (1) whether disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities; (2) whether the materials sought contain intimate details of a highly personal nature; and (3) whether the same information is available from other sources. See People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280, 292 (2017). The types of personal information which the second clause of this exemption is designed to protect includes: marital status, paternity, substance abuse, government assistance, family disputes and reputation. Id. at 292 n.13; see also Doe v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 415, 427 (1988) (holding that a motor vehicle licensee has a privacy interest in disclosure of his social security number). This clause requires a balancing test which provides that where the public interest in obtaining the requested information substantially outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy, the private interest in preventing disclosure must yield. PETA, 477 Mass. at 291. The public has a recognized interest in knowing whether public servants are carrying out their duties in a law-abiding and efficient manner. Id. at 292. In its response, the Department stated the following in support of its redactions to the responsive records under Exemption (c): The [12] reports and Q-Sheet in question needed to be redacted as it is vital in protecting Information, such as Date of Birth, Social Security Numbers, License Numbers, etc. and medical information. The reports in question also needed to be redacted as it is vital in protecting a person’s reputation as well as from an unwarranted invasion of persona[l] privacy. Regarding its withholding of records under Exemption (c), the Department additionally stated, “there are two reports that cannot be released based upon Massachusetts Public Records law Exemption C.” Regarding the Department’s claims for redacting records, to the extent that the records contain social security numbers, license numbers, and medical information that relates to a specifically named individual, I find the Department may permissibly withhold such portions from disclosure under Exemption (c). However, based on the Department’s response, it is unclear how the remaining redacted information, including dates of birth, constitute intimate details of a highly personal nature, nor how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to

Samantha Murnane SPR25/2911 Page 7 October 20, 2025 an individual of normal sensibilities. It is also not clear whether this information is available from other sources. Id. Further, the Department did not provide any supporting information with respect to examining whether the public interest in obtaining the requested information outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy. Id. Moreover, I find that the Department has not demonstrated that the “two reports” as described above may be withheld in their entirety under Exemption (c). The Department must clarify these matters. 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, 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.” Id. 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., 388 Mass. at 438. 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

Samantha Murnane SPR25/2911 Page 8 October 20, 2025 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. In its response, the Department stated the following regarding its redactions of the “12 reports and one QSheet” under Exemption (f): This public disclosure is not in the public interest since the complainants, victims, and witnesses may not speak openly about matters under investigation without the assurance of confidentiality. If witness information is released, it may prevent them from coming forward based on the possibility of public disclosure in the future. . . . Matters that were under investigation contain vital investigatory information, evidence, and police procedures, which would violate the assurance of confidentiality and proper investigatory efforts. If the information is released, it may prevent or taint police process and investigation of the incident. . . . The Department additionally stated that it was withholding the 911 audio responsive to “the Motor Vehicle Accident on 12/11/24[,]” as described above as well as “[a]ny other [responsive] records . . . that [the Department] still [has] custody of. . . .” To the extent that the Department redacted the identities of complainants, victims and voluntary witnesses, the Department may permissibly do so under Exemption (f). However, although the Department claims that disclosure would prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement, it is unclear how the records in their entirety can be withheld under Exemption (f). It is not clear from the Department’s response whether the records contain confidential investigative techniques that would be prejudicial to the ongoing investigation if disclosed. The Department did not demonstrate how disclosure of any 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). See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90 (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in

Samantha Murnane SPR25/2911 Page 9 October 20, 2025 nature). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). The Department must clarify these matters. Further, the Department must identify the records, categories of records, or portions of the records it intends to withhold. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3)(c)(4). The Department must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Fellini with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within 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. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Kristen Fellini