Valentina Davydov v. Springfield, City of (SPR 20253863)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 13, 2026 SPR25/3863 Stephen G. Roche, Esq. 2nd Associate City Solicitor City of Springfield 36 Court Street, Room 305 Springfield, MA 01103 Dear Attorney Roche: I have received the petition of Valentina Davydov appealing the response of the City of Springfield (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On October 25, 2025, Ms. Davydov requested: …the names and addresses of the operator and owner of the vehicle involved, their insurance carrier’s information as well as the complete Motor Vehicle Crash Police Report and any other documentation on file, including accident footage, witness / driver statements and accident reconstruction findings and reports, relative to the subject motor vehicle accident of September 26, 2025. On October 27, 2025, Ms. Davydov further clarified her request as follows: We are not seeking body-worn camera video footage at this time, but rather footage of the accident in City’s possession that may have been captured by traffic light cameras or surveillance cameras from surrounding businesses. But more urgently, we are seeking information on the driver/owner of the vehicle involved as well as the insurance carrier for the vehicle…. The City responded on October 27, 2025, and assigned reference number 25-3871 to this request. The City provided further responses on October 28, November 10, November 14, November 25, and December 10, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Ms. Davydov petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3863, was opened as a result. On January 12, 2026, subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the City provided a further response. 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

Stephen G. Roche, Esq. SPR25/3863 Page 2 January 13, 2026 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 her appeal petition, Ms. Davydov contends: … The denial fails to demonstrate how the disclosure of the names of the vehicle’s owner and operator and the insurance information, the information so necessary to process the funeral expenses, would “probably so prejudice” law enforcement efforts or crime prevention. … … A categorical refusal to disclose any such records relating to the funeral- expense provision, without explanation or redaction, is inconsistent with the statute…. On January 8, 2026, Ms. Davydov further clarified her appeal, explaining: We do understand the accident is still under investigation, so we are not so much appealing the withholding of records at this time. We are appealing the redactions on a released crash report, specifically the information pertaining to the names of both, the driver and the owner of the vehicle involved, their addresses, the year/make/model of the vehicle and the registration plate number and the state where the vehicle is registered. This information is necessary for us to be able to track the insurance claim number down to assist the Estate with the payment of the funeral expenses.

Stephen G. Roche, Esq. SPR25/3863 Page 3 January 13, 2026 The City’s Responses In its October 27, 2025 response, the City stated, “[s]ince your request seeks body-worn camera video footage in possession of the Springfield Police Department, the City of Springfield requires additional information….” On October 28, 2025, the City responded, “[t]his accident is a fatal that occurred on 9/26/25. Investigation is still in the preliminary stages. Report is unavailable at this time. Please request an extension.” On November 10, 2025, the City stated, “[n]o CFS may be released at this time.” On November 14, 2025, the City responded, “…there is no traffic camera footage available for that date.” On November 25, 2025, the City provided a redacted record, the “Motor Vehicle Crash Police Report,” citing Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 4, § 7 (26)(f). In its December 10, 2025 response, the City cited Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold any remaining responsive records, stating, “[w]e have sent whatever records we can at this point.” On January 12, 2026, subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the City provided a further response, stating, “…the accident reconstruction report should be completed by the end of the month.” However, based on Ms. Davydov’s appeal, she does not appear to be appealing the withholding of records under Exemption (f). 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

Stephen G. Roche, Esq. SPR25/3863 Page 4 January 13, 2026 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. 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. 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. On November 25th, the City provided the redacted “Motor Vehicle Crash Police Report” which is the subject of Ms. Davydov’s appeal, and stated, “[a]s you know, this fatal accident is still under investigation. The Traffic Bureau has approved release of the attached heavily redacted crash report.” The City also provided a redaction log, which states the “[r]eason” as “M.G.L. ch. 4 § 7(26)(f).”

Stephen G. Roche, Esq. SPR25/3863 Page 5 January 13, 2026 Although the City claims there is an ongoing investigation regarding the requested record, based on the City’s response, it is unclear whether the redacted information contains confidential investigative techniques. The City also did not demonstrate how disclosure of the redacted portions of the responsive record “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). Reinstein, 378 Mass. 289-290 (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). The City must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Ms. Davydov with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten 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. Ms. Davydov 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: Valentina Davydov