Walsh, Patrick v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20260040)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 20, 2026 SPR26/0040 Christine O’Donnell, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel Boston Police Department 1 City Hall Square, Room Boston, MA 02201 Dear Attorney O’Donnell: 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 January 4, 2026, Mr. Walsh requested, “[a]ll body-worn camera (BWC) footage from officers responding to the fatal hit-and-run at Commonwealth Avenue and Hereford Street on January 3, 2026, involving [an identified] victim. Arrest Footage: All BWC footage capturing the surrender and arrest of [an identified individual] on January 3 or 4, 2026, including any interactions at the Brookline or Boston police facilities.” The Department responded on January 6, 2026, and assigned reference number B000020- 010426 to the request. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Walsh petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0040, 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. Att’y 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 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

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR26/0040 Page 2 January 20, 2026 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. The Department’s January 6th Response In its January 6, 2026 response, the Department cited Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested records in their entirety. Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Walsh asserts, “[t]he Department provided only a conclusory statement that the records are part of an ‘ongoing homicide investigation’ without explaining how disclosure would ‘operate in derogation’ of the public interest.... The Department has not explained how the specific footage requested would jeopardize the ongoing homicide investigation.” 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. As a matter of course, witness provided information is essential to efficient and effective Law enforcement. This exemption is intended to allow investigative officials to provide an

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR26/0040 Page 3 January 20, 2026 assurance of confidentiality to private citizens so that they will speak openly and voluntarily about matters. Bougas, 371 Mass. at 62. Any information contained in a witness statement, which if disclosed would create a grave risk of directly or indirectly identifying the voluntary witness is subject to withholding Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Ret. Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 438 (1983). The disclosure of the names and other identifying information of victims, complainants and voluntary witnesses may deter other potential witnesses and citizens from providing information to law enforcement agencies in future investigations. Therefore, Exemption (f) will allow the withholding of the name and identifying details of any victims, complainants and voluntary witnesses, and where the individuals can be indirectly identified even with redaction. 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. In its January 6th response, the Department argues the following under Exemption (f): [t]he records you requested are associated with an active and ongoing homicide investigation. As such, your request is denied, as all records associated with this matter are exempt from disclosure pursuant to the investigative exemption to the public records law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7 (26) (f). The responsive records relate to an active and ongoing homicide investigation. The disclosure of the records before the close of the investigation would likely compromise the investigation’s integrity. As the investigation is still active, further witnesses, including the criminal suspect, may need to be interviewed or re-interviewed. Affording the criminal suspect or other potential witnesses a view of the evidence before that witness’s interview or before the conclusion of the investigation would allow said witness(es) the opportunity to tailor their testimony to their benefit, which may not necessarily comport with the truth and thus will probably so prejudice the

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR26/0040 Page 4 January 20, 2026 investigation. In conclusion, the Department asserts that it has met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that exemption (f) applies to the responsive records as they are related to an active and ongoing investigation, less than 3 days old. Although the Department states in its January 6th response that it has an active and ongoing homicide investigation regarding the requested records, it remains unclear how the records, in their entirety, can be withheld under Exemption (f). It is additionally 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 also did not demonstrate how disclosure of any 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). 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). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Walsh with a response to his 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 (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Patrick Walsh