David Chritson v. Somerville, City of (SPR 20253521)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 12, 2025 SPR25/3521 Cynthia Amara, Esq. City Solicitor City of Somerville 93 Highland Avenue, City Hall Somerville, MA 02143 Dear Attorney Amara: I have received the petition of David Chritson appealing the response of the City of Somerville (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On October 29, 2025, Mr. Chritson requested: ….all records associated with the incident that occurred on October 21, 2025 and involves [an identified individual]—including all records in physical, electronic, or any other format—that are in the possession, custody, or control of SPD and/or the City of Somerville (City). Additionally, please also identify and release the following responsive records: a. 911 dispatch records, recordings, and communications; b. Radio transmissions and communications; c. Audio recordings of oral communications; d. Reports, documents, papers, and emails; e. Communications made or received by SPD’s [identified individual] or other personnel. Prior Appeal The requested records were the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR25/3351 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 25, 2025). In my November 25th determination, I closed SPR25/3351 in light of the City providing Mr. Chritson with a response dated November 24, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Chritson petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3521, was opened as a result. 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

Cynthia Amara, Esq. SPR25/3521 Page 2 December 12, 2025 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. 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. Chritson contends: On November 12, 2025, the City provided a response redacting and withholding approximately 90% of the responsive records under dubious and unsubstantiated claims of exemptions (f) and (c)…. The City’s November 24 response stated that the City will redact and withhold: a. [An identified individual’s] name and comments which she already disclosed to me; and b. Records of likely unlawful remarks or behavior directed towards me by SPD. I ask that the Supervisor of Records: (1) Order an in camera review of the records withheld and redacted by the City, and (2) Order the release of all responsive public records. The City’s November 12th and 24th Responses In its November 12, 2025 and November 24, 2025 responses, the City cited Exemptions (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold and redact responsive records. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c), (f).

Cynthia Amara, Esq. SPR25/3521 Page 3 December 12, 2025 Exemption (c) Exemption (c) applies to: 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). Second clause 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 November 12th response, under Exemption (c), the City asserted: Pursuant to exemption (c), the privacy exemption, materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, have been redacted from the enclosed document. … We are declining to release a copy of the recording pursuant to G. L. c. 4, § 7,

Cynthia Amara, Esq. SPR25/3521 Page 4 December 12, 2025 cl.26, exemptions (c) and (f). … Further, the recording contains information relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. We have determined the information being provided is of a highly personal nature, and the public interest in disclosure of the information does not outweigh the privacy interest associated with the disclosure of these recordings. G..L. c. 4, § 7, cl.26(c). In its November 24th response, the City added: …this will confirm that the redactions made to the police report provided to Mr. Chritson were necessary pursuant to exemptions (c) and (f) of the Mass. Public Records Law. The reporting person’s name and other personal information is exempt from disclosure. As explained in our response to Mr. Chritson on [November 12, 2025], we have withheld the 911 call in its entirety pursuant to exemptions (c) and (f). After reviewing the 911 call, we determined the person’s voice and content of the call make the person easily identifiable. Regarding the redactions under Exemption (c), the City must clarify how the redacted information constitutes intimate details of a highly personal nature. It is also not certain how disclosure of the information would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. Further, the City did not provide information with respect to the balancing test, which examines whether the public interest in obtaining the requested information outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. Therefore, the City must clarify these matters. Moreover, where the City withheld a copy of the recording, the City’s response did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. Based on the City’s response, it is unclear how the withheld recording contains intimate details of a highly personal nature or how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. It is additionally uncertain whether any of the information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. Also, the City did not provide additional information with respect to the balancing test which examines whether the public interest in obtaining the requested information outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy. Id. at 292. The City 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

Cynthia Amara, Esq. SPR25/3521 Page 5 December 12, 2025 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. Id. 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 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

Cynthia Amara, Esq. SPR25/3521 Page 6 December 12, 2025 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 November 12th response, the City explains: Pursuant to exemption (f), the investigatory exemption, redactions have been made for details in witness statements or witness identities, “which if released create a grave risk of directly or indirectly identifying a private citizen who volunteers as a witness.” Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Retirement Board, 388 Mass. 427, 438 (1983). Therefore, we have redacted any information identifying the name(s) or other identifying information of the complainant(s) or witness(es) as well as any statements made. We are declining to release a copy of the recording pursuant to G. L. c. 4, § 7, cl.26, exemptions (c) and (f). Exemption (f) permits a records custodian to withhold information that may sufficiently protect the identity of a complainant or witness. The investigative exemption is intended to allow investigative officials to provide an assurance of confidentiality to private citizens so that they will speak openly to law enforcement. Bougas v. Chief of Police, 371 Mass. 59, 62 (1976). A 911 caller is a voluntary witness. M.G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26(f), therefore allows the permanent withholding of the name and identifying details of witnesses. We have determined the person’s voice and nature of the call make the individual easily identifiable and we are, therefore, withholding the audio recording requested. In its November 24th response, the City asserts: Further, this will confirm that the redactions made to the police report provided to Mr. Chritson were necessary pursuant to exemptions (c) and (f) of the Mass. Public Records Law. The reporting person’s name and other personal information is exempt from disclosure. As explained in our response to Mr. Chritson on [November 12, 2025], we have withheld the 911 call in its entirety pursuant to exemptions (c) and (f). After reviewing the 911 call, we determined the person’s voice and content of the call make the person easily identifiable. Based on the City’s response regarding the redactions, to the extent that the record contains identifying information of a voluntary witness, I find the City may permissibly withhold the information from disclosure under Exemption (f). With regard to the recording, although portions of the recording may fall under Exemption (f), it is uncertain how the recording can be withheld in its entirety. The City must

Cynthia Amara, Esq. SPR25/3521 Page 7 December 12, 2025 explain whether the records can be redacted in order to protect the identity of voluntary witnesses, so that segregable portions of the record can be provided. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90 (1979) (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). Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Chritson 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. Christon may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: David Chritson