Debra Silveira v. Suffolk County District Attorney's Office (SPR 20253731)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 5, 2026 SPR25/3731 Elizabeth Schwab Records Access Officer Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office One Bulfinch Place Boston, MA 02114 Dear Ms. Schwab: I have received the petition of Debra Silveira appealing the response of the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office (Office) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On April 10, 2025, Ms. Silveira requested, “[a]ll clerk magistrate show cause hearing recordings, arrest warrants, any and all documentation related to rendition or extradition for those warrants, any and all communications with other agencies regarding the defendant or specified cases for [an identified case] docket numbers 2404CR000424, 2404CR000423.” Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR25/3366 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 1, 2025). In my December 1st determination, I found that the Office did not meet its burden of specificity to withhold the records, in their entirety, under Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. The Office provided a response on December 15, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Office’s response, Ms. Silveira petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3731, 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). 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

Elizabeth Schwab SPR25/3731 Page 2 January 5, 2026 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 her appeal, Ms. Silveira states, “I don’t believe the Suffolk DA records department complied with the secretary’s order dated Dec 1st 2025, nor do I feel they are compliant with the public records laws.” The Office’s December 15th Response In its December 15, 2025 response, the Office stated that the records are exempt under Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. 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 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.

Elizabeth Schwab SPR25/3731 Page 3 January 5, 2026 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):  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 requester; and information voluntarily provided by an individual or entity to aid in the investigation. In its December 15th response, the Office asserted that the case, Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. David Hughes, pending in Suffolk Superior Court, Docket No. 2184CR00211 is currently ongoing. The Office further stated, “[u]pon review of the records, the Office determined that the Bergeron and Hughes materials cannot possibly be separated, narrowed, or re-scoped in any way that would allow for lawful disclosure. The investigative and evidentiary overlap between the two matters, including the victim and lead detective, is nearly total; and there is no alternative way to produce the resulting records without compromising the open Hughes prosecution.” 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,

Elizabeth Schwab SPR25/3731 Page 4 January 5, 2026 administrative hearings or mediation. In light of the pending criminal matter, Commonwealth v. David Hughes, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). I further decline to opine on the applicability of Exemption (f) 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: Debra Silveira