Rami, Kisla v. Department of Fire Services (SPR 20260044)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 21, 2026 SPR26/0044 Glenn M. Rooney General Counsel Department of Fire Services P.O. Box 1025 State Road Stow, MA 01775 Dear Attorney Rooney: I have received the petition of Kisla Rami appealing the response of the Department of Fire Services (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66 § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 29, 2025, Ms. Rami requested the following records related to “the fire that occurred on December 7, 2025, at [an identified address]”: [1] Fire incident and investigative reports[;] [2] Cause and origin determinations[;] [3] Photographs, videos, and other visual documentation[;] [4] Notes, diagrams, measurements, and scene documentation[;] [5] Audio recordings, including 911 calls and dispatch communications[;] [6] Internal or external correspondence relating to the fire or investigation[;] [7] Any reports or communications shared with other agencies, investigators, or insurers[;] [8] any final or preliminary findings related to the fire[.] The Department provided a response on December 29, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. Rami petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0044, was opened as a result. Status of the Requestor; Reason for the Request 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 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

Glenn M. Rooney, Esq. SPR26/0044 Page 2 January 21, 2026 Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Ms. Rami’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 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 Deparment’s December 29th Response In its December 29, 2025 response, the Department cited Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested records in their entirety. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f). Current Appeal In her appeal, Ms. Rami stated, “[t]he Department denied my request in its entirety pursuant to the investigatory exemption under M.G.L. c. 4, §7, cl. 26(f). While I recognize the importance of protecting active investigations, the application of this exemption in this instance is overly broad and fails to account for the compelling public and personal interests at stake. Although the Department asserts that the investigation remains ongoing, more than sufficient time has elapsed to permit disclosure of factual, non-deliberative materials without compromising investigative integrity…” 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

Glenn M. Rooney, Esq. SPR26/0044 Page 3 January 21, 2026 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 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

Glenn M. Rooney, Esq. SPR26/0044 Page 4 January 21, 2026 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. Under Exemption (f), the Department stated the following: Please be advised that this incident is the subject of an on-going investigation by the Massachusetts State Police, assigned to the Office of the State Fire Marshal. It is the Department’s position that the disclosure of investigatory meterials related to an ongoing investigation prior to its conclusion could harm ongoing investigation efforts by the Department and/or investigative entities. In light of the pending investigation, the report(s) you seek are not subject to public disclosure at this time pursuant to G.L. c. 4, §7, cl. 26 (f)… …the disclosure of witnesses’ statements or witness identities during the pendency of an open criminal matter is likely to deter potential witnesses from providing information to police in this and/or future investigations. In this instance, the Department may continue to pursue their investigation and may interview or re-interview existing or new witnesses. Therefore, the disclosure of certain information during the open investigation and before the statue of limitations has passed, could hinder the Department in its investigative efforts since, for example, additional witnesses or existing witnesses could be added to the investigation and the Department wants to ensure these parties are and/or remain candid. … Accordingly, at this time, the Department declines to provide you with a copy of the report and other associated materials. Upon the conclusion of the aforementioned investigation, the Department will release the records to you, subject to applicable exemptions to the Public Records Law… Although portions of the responsive records may fall under Exemption (f), it is uncertain how the records can be withheld in their entirety. The Department did not provide adequate supporting information to demonstrate how disclosure of any segregable portion of the records “would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforecement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest[,]” as required under Exemption (f). In addition, the Department must explain whether the records can be redacted in order to protect the identity of voluntary witnesses, so that segregable portions of the records can be provided. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 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. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). The Department must clarifty these matters. In addition, the Department did not identify the records, categories of records or portions

Glenn M. Rooney, Esq. SPR26/0044 Page 5 January 21, 2026 of records in its possession that it intends to withhold from disclosure. To deny access to 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). Therefore, the Department must identify the record(s) it has in its possession that the Department withheld under Exemption (f). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Rami with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with the 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. Rami 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: Kisla Rami