Justice Forall v. Bridgewater, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20253535)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 12, 2025 SPR25/3535 Meredith Roselli Records Access Officer Bridgewater Police Department 220 Pleasant Street Bridgewater, MA 02324 Dear Ms. Roselli: I have received the petition of Justice Forall (requestor) appealing the response of the Bridgewater 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 November 15, 2025, the requestor sought the following records “related to two incidents involving [an identified indivudal] that occurred in the Bridgewater Commons area”: [1] [A]ll incident reports, narratives, call logs, CAD entries, notes, and any supplemental reports related to the June 30, 2025 incident involving [an identified individual]. [2] The same categories of records for July 1, 2025 incident involving the same individual in the same location. Any related audio or video recordings, including cruiser/dash-cam footage, dispatch audio, and any 911 calls. [3] Any photographs or evidence logs connected to either incident. [4] Any internal communications (emails, texts, or other messages) between BPD personnel relating to these two incidents. The Department provided a response on December 1, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, the requestor petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3535, was opened as a result. Subsequently, the Department provided an additional response on December 1, 2025. 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

Meredith Roselli SPR25/3535 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. See 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. See 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 Deparment’s December 1st Response In its December 1, 2025 response, the Department withheld records related to Item 2 under the Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) Act, as it operates through Exemption (a), and Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a), (f). Additionally, the Department stated it “does not have any records dated [Item 1].” Current Appeal In their appeal, the requestor objected to the Department withholding responsive records under CORI and Exemption (f). Additionally, the requestor stated, “I now submit new, material evidence indicating that the Department’s asseration that ‘no records exist’ for the June 30, 2025 incident is factually incorrect…” In a December 1, 2025 email communication to the requestor and this office, the Department stated, “[t]he records requested contain information related to a criminal investigation and subsequent charges…These records, in their entirety, are directly related to an active court case…The Case name is Commonwealth v. Rachel M Kadis. The court docket number is 2515CR002737…”

Meredith Roselli SPR25/3535 Page 3 December 12, 2025 Active Litigation 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. This office has reviewed the trial court’s docket and verified that the criminal litigation relating to the records that are the subject of this request, is active and ongoing in Brockton District Court. See Commonwealth v. Rachel M. Kadis, Brockton District Court, Docket No. 2515CR002737. In light of the active litigation, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Additionally, I decline to opine on the applicability of CORI, as it operates through Exemption (a), and the applicability of Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law to the requested records. It should be noted that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Justice Forall