Patrick Walsh v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20253610)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 19, 2025 SPR25/3610 Grace Jung Director of Public Records City of Boston 1 City Hall Square Boston, MA 02201 Dear Ms. Jung: I have received the petition of Patrick Walsh appealing the response of the Boston 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 19, 2025, Mr. Walsh requested, “body camera footage of the officers that first responded to the Sept 5th 2025 shooting around . . . Tremont St Roxbury Crossing.” The Department responded on November 19, 2025 and November 21, 2025. Unsatisfied with the responses, Mr. Walsh petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3610, was opened as a result. Status of the Requestor Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Mr. Walsh’s status shall have no bearing on the public status of any existing responsive records. 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

Grace Jung SPR25/3610 Page 2 December 19, 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. 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 Department’s November 19th and November 21st Responses On November 19, 2025, the Department acknowledged receipt of Mr. Walsh’s request, assigning the request reference number B003356-111925. In its November 21, 2025 response, the Department withheld responsive records in their entirety pursuant to G. L. c. 41, § 98F, and G. L. c. 119, §§ 38, 60A, and 65 under Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). Current Appeal In his December 7, 2025 appeal to this office, Mr. Walsh stated, “[t]his request is for an unsolved shooting…The request was denied because a juvenile was involved and the police want to protect the juvenile’s identity. We know the police can edit the videos before releasing them. Just blur out the face of the juvenile involved. If there is a cost for this I’ll be happy to pay it.” 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, 154 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-546 (1977).

Grace Jung SPR25/3610 Page 3 December 19, 2025 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 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, § 98F In its November 21st response, the Department cites G. L. c. 41, § 98F, which provides in pertinent part as follows: Each police department and each college or university to which officers have been appointed pursuant to section 63 of chapter 22C shall make, keep and maintain a daily log, written in a form that can be easily understood, recording, in chronological order, all responses to valid complaints received, crimes reported, the names, addresses of persons arrested and the charges against such persons arrested. All entries in said daily logs shall, unless otherwise provided in law, be public records available without charge to the public during regular business hours and at all other reasonable times; provided, however, that the following entries shall be kept in a separate log and shall not be a public record nor shall such entry be disclosed to the public, or any individual not specified in section 97D: (i) any entry in a log which pertains to a handicapped individual who is physically or mentally incapacitated to the degree that said person is confined to a wheelchair or is bedridden or requires the use of a device designed to provide said person with mobility, (ii) any information concerning responses to reports of domestic violence, rape or sexual assault, (iii) any entry concerning the arrest of a person for assault, assault and battery or violation of a protective order where the victim is a family or household member, as defined in section 1 of chapter 209A, or (iv) any entry concerning the arrest of a person who has not yet reached 18 years of age. G. L. c. 41, § 98F. Under G. L. c. 41, § 98F, the Department states, “[w]hile the record you are seeking is not an entry in the daily police log and does not relate to an arrest of a juvenile, the record you are seeking involves a juvenile; therefore, by necessary implication, this record is not a public record and is exempt.”

Grace Jung SPR25/3610 Page 4 December 19, 2025 G. L. c. 119, § 38, 60A, and 65 In its November 21st response, the Department cites G. L. c. 119, §§ 38, 60A, and 65, which provide in pertinent parts as follows: All hearings under sections 1 to 38A, inclusive, except those related to court orders to not resuscitate or to withdraw life-sustaining medical treatment for children in the custody of the department under a care and protection order, shall be closed to the general public. It shall be unlawful to publish the names of persons before the court in any closed hearing. G. L. c. 119, § 38. 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. Courts shall designate suitable times for the hearing of cases of children under 18 years of age, which shall be called the juvenile session, for which a separate docket and record shall be kept. Said session shall be separate from that for the trial of criminal cases, shall not, except as otherwise expressly provided, be held in conjunction with other business of the court, and shall be held in rooms not used for criminal trials; and in places where no separate juvenile courtroom is provided, hearings, so far as possible, shall be held in chambers. The court shall exclude the general public from juvenile sessions admitting only such persons as may have a direct interest in the case, except in cases where the commonwealth has proceeded by indictment. A complaint under section sixty-three may be heard in such juvenile session. G. L. c. 119, § 65. Under G. L. c. 119, § 38, the Department states, “…body camera footage of juveniles requires the same protection that is required under c. 119. Therefore, body camera footage of juveniles is exemption [sic] under statutory Exemption A and is prevented from public disclosure.”

Grace Jung SPR25/3610 Page 5 December 19, 2025 Under G. L. c. 119, §§ 60A, 65, the Department argues, “[t]he language of this statute contemplates that the identity of juveniles be protected from public inspection except in very limited circumstances and that juvenile records should only be available to certain individuals and not the public at large. This is significant because it shows that the identity of the juveniles is not subject to public disclosure. Section 65 establishes requirements for juvenile sessions and the presence of minors and requires courts to keep separate dockets and records for such sessions. G.L. c. 119, ss. 65. This is another example where proceedings and information involving persons under 18 is not open to the public.” Further the Department argues, “[t]he law that requires police logs concerning the arrests of individuals under the age of 18 to be kept separately and specifically stating that such records are not public records along with the laws that require juvenile court proceedings and records to be closed to the public and not subject to public records show the intent to protect this population. Disclosing information on persons under 18 could cause unreasonable harm and personal embarrassment. The previously mentioned statutes by necessary implication exempt the body worn camera footage from public disclosure pursuant to Exemption A in order to protect persons under the age of 18.” Burden of Specificity in Claiming Exemptions Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be upon the records custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based . . .”); see also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511. Based on the Department’s response, I find the Department has not met its burden in responding to this request. Although the Department cites G. L. c. 41, § 98F, and G. L. c. 119, §§ 38, 60A, and 65, as they operate through Exemption (a), the Department has not demonstrated that the withheld record is a police log “entry concerning the arrest of a person who has not yet reached 18 years of age”; that the withheld record is “related to court orders to not resuscitate or to withdraw life-sustaining medical treatment for children in the custody of the department under a care and protection order”; that the withheld record is “a record of a youthful offender”; or that the withheld record is related to a “juvenile session” in court. Additionally, the Department must identify the record(s) it is withholding and must explain how the statues cited in its response specifically apply to the withheld record(s). Further, it is not certain how the record(s) can be withheld in its entirety. The Department must explain how the record(s) cannot be segregated to protect the identity of juveniles. 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). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. The Department must clarify these matters.

Grace Jung SPR25/3610 Page 6 December 19, 2025 Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Walsh 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. Walsh may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Patrick Walsh