Concerned Parents v. Lowell, City of - Police Department (SPR 20253743)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 2, 2026 SPR25/3743 Jacqueline Cook Keeper of Records Lowell Police Department 50 Arcand Drive Lowell, MA 01852 Dear Ms. Cook: I have received the petition of Concerned Parents (requestor) appealing the response of the Lowell 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 October 17, 2025, the requestor sought the following: [A] . . . [R]ecords responsive to [an identified individual] and her missing persons case . . . VICAP . . . Case # . . . (we’re not sure what [the] LPD . . . [c]ase number is) including copies of: [1] Police Reports[;] [2] Evidence Catalogs (including with Massachusetts State Police (MSP), Middlesex District Attorney Office (MDAO), Tewksbury Police department (Tewksbury PD), Lowell Police Department (Lowell PD) or Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI))[;] [3] Body Cam recordings (including with MSP, MDAO, Tewksbury PD, Lowell PD or FBI)[;] [4] Search Warrants (SW) including SW Applications, SW Execution Reports, SW Case Reports, SW Returns (including with MSP, MDAO, Tewksbury PD, Lowell PD or FBI)[;] Timeline[:] January 2, 2025-October 17, 2025. . . . [B] . . . [R]ecords responsive to [an identified individual] and his missing persons case . . . LPD . . . Case Number . . . including copies of: [5] Police Reports[;] [6] Evidence Catalogs (including with . . . MSP . . . MDAO . . . Lowell PD . . . or . . . FBI . . . )[;] [7] Body Cam recordings (including with MSP, MDAO, Lowell PD or FBI)[;] 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

Jacqueline Cook SPR25/3743 Page 2 January 2, 2026 [8] . . . SW . . . including SW Applications, SW Execution Reports, SW Case Reports, SW Returns (including with MSP, MDAO, Lowell PD or FBI)[;] Timeline[:] September 15, 2025-October 17, 2025. . . . [C] . . . [R]ecords responsive to [an identified individual] and her missing persons case . . . LPD . . . Case Number . . . including copies of: [9] Police Reports[;] [10] Evidence Catalogs (including with . . . MSP . . . MDAO . . . Lowell PD . . . or . . . FBI . . . )[;] [11] Body Cam recordings (including with MSP, MDAO, Lowell PD or FBI)[;] [12] . . . SW . . . including SW Applications, SW Execution Reports, SW Case Reports, SW Returns (including with MSP, MDAO, Lowell PD or FBI)[.] Timeline[:] January 18, 2010-October 17, 2025. . . . Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/3463 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 5, 2025). In my December 5th determination, I ordered the Department to provide the requestor with a response to their request. Subsequently, the Department responded on December 19, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, the requestor petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/3743, 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 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.

Jacqueline Cook SPR25/3743 Page 3 January 2, 2026 The Department’s December 19th Response In its December 19, 2025 response, the Department denied the request, in its entirety, and stated, “. . . the responsive records are exempt under Exemption F. . . [.] These 3 cases remain open investigations.” Current Appeal In their December 19, 2025 appeal to this office, the requestor contends, “. . . [the] Department failed to produce any responsive records and wrongly used blanket exemptions (Exemption F), where it withheld an unknown count of responsive records. . . .” 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 289-290. 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. Confidential investigative techniques may also be withheld indefinitely if disclosure is deemed to be prejudicial to future law enforcement activities. Bougas, 371 Mass. at 62.

Jacqueline Cook SPR25/3743 Page 4 January 2, 2026 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 requestor; and information voluntarily provided by an individual or entity to aid in the investigation. Upon review, although the Department claims it has an open investigation regarding the requested records, it is unclear how the records, in their entirety, can be withheld under Exemption (f). It is unclear 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 segregable 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 nature). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). Additionally, the Department must identify the records in its possession that are responsive to the request. To deny access to a record or portion of a record under the Public Records Law, a records access officer must identify the record, categories of records, or portions of the record it intends to withhold. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3)(c)(4). Here, the Department withheld responsive records without identifying each of the records. Therefore, the Department must identify the record(s) it has in its possession that it withheld under Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. The Department must clarify these matters. Consequently, I find the Department did not meet its burden of specificity to withhold the requested records, in their entirety, under Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law.

Jacqueline Cook SPR25/3743 Page 5 January 2, 2026 Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide the requestor 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. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Concerned Parents