Chritson, David v. Somerville, City of (SPR 20260166)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 30, 2026 SPR26/0166 Cynthia Amara, Esq. City Solicitor City of Somerville 93 Highland Avenue, City Hall Somerville, MA 02143 Dear Attorney Amara: I have received the petition of David Chritson appealing the response of the City of Somerville (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On October 29, 2025, Mr. Chritson requested: [A]ll records associated with the incident that occurred on October 21, 2025 and involves [an identified individual]—including all records in physical, electronic, or any other format—that are in the possession, custody, or control of SPD and/or the City of Somerville (City). Additionally, please also identify and release the following responsive records: a. 911 dispatch records, recordings, and communications; b. Radio transmissions and communications; c. Audio recordings of oral communications; d. Reports, documents, papers, and emails; e. Communications made or received by SPD’s [identified individual] or other personnel. Prior Appeals The requested records were the subject of prior appeals. See SPR25/3351 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 25, 2025) and SPR25/3521 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 12, 2025). In my December 12th determination, I found that the City had met its burden to redact the identifying information of voluntary witnesses under Exemption (f), but ordered the City to clarify its claims for withholding and redacting other records under Exemptions (c) and (f). Subsequently, the City responded on December 16, and December 23, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Mr. Chritson petitioned this office 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

Cynthia Amara, Esq. SPR26/0166 Page 2 January 30, 2026 and this appeal, SPR26/0166, 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. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Chritson contends the following: 1. The City redacted the entirety of the “Narrative Description[s]” located on pages 2 and 3 of the Somerville Police incident report # 25065639[.] . . . 2. The City withheld the entirety of audio recordings of 911 calls made by [an identified individual], and the City only disclosed redacted “radio transmissions.” The City’s December 16th and December 23rd Responses In its December 16, and December 23, 2026 responses, the City cites Exemptions (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law for withholding a responsive 911 call and for redacting an incident report. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c), (f). Exemption (c) Exemption (c) permits the withholding of: personnel and medical files or information and any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; provided, however, that this subclause

Cynthia Amara, Esq. SPR26/0166 Page 3 January 30, 2026 shall not apply to records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). First Clause – Medical Medical information that is of a personal nature and relates to a specifically named individual may be exempt from disclosure. Brogan v. Sch. Comm. of Westport, 401 Mass. 306, 308 (1987); Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Ret. Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 438 (1983). Generally, medical information is sufficiently personal to warrant exemption. Globe Newspaper Co., 338 Mass. at 432-34. There is a strong public policy in Massachusetts that favors confidentiality as to medical data about a person’s body. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Chief Med. Exam’r, 404 Mass. 132, 135 (1987). Second Clause – Privacy Analysis under the second clause of Exemption (c) is subjective in nature and requires a balancing of the public’s right to know against the relevant privacy interests at stake. Torres v. Att’y Gen., 391 Mass. 1, 9 (1984); Att’y Gen. v. Assistant Comm’r of Real Prop. Dep’t, 380 Mass. 623, 625 (1980). Therefore, determinations must be made on a case-by-case basis. This clause does not protect all data relating to specifically named individuals. Rather, there are factors to consider when assessing the weight of the privacy interest at stake: (1) whether disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities; (2) whether the materials sought contain intimate details of a highly personal nature; and (3) whether the same information is available from other sources. See People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280, 292 (2017). The types of personal information which the second clause of this exemption is designed to protect includes: marital status, paternity, substance abuse, government assistance, family disputes and reputation. Id. at 292 n.13; see also Doe v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 415, 427 (1988) (holding that a motor vehicle licensee has a privacy interest in disclosure of his social security number). This clause requires a balancing test which provides that where the public interest in obtaining the requested information substantially outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy, the private interest in preventing disclosure must yield. PETA, 477 Mass. at 291. The public has a recognized interest in knowing whether public servants are carrying out their duties in a law-abiding and efficient manner. Id. at 292. In its December 16th response, under Exemption (c), the City argues the following: Redactions have been made under the Massachusetts Public Records Law. G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl.26. Pursuant to exemption (c), the privacy exemption, data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an

Cynthia Amara, Esq. SPR26/0166 Page 4 January 30, 2026 unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, has been redacted from the audio. In its December 23rd response, the City goes on to argue as follows: Further, the recording and the incident report contain intimate details of a highly personal nature in that it identifies the name, personal information and personal phone number of the caller. The information is not available from other sources. The public interest in obtaining the requested information does not outweigh the seriousness of any invasion of privacy. Disclosing the name and details contained in a statement of a person who is legitimately concerned about the well-being of another individual cannot be disclosed and would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. 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 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

Cynthia Amara, Esq. SPR26/0166 Page 5 January 30, 2026 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 December 16th response, under Exemption (f), the City argues the following: Pursuant to exemption (f), the investigatory exemption, redactions have been made to witness identities, “which if released create a grave risk of directly or indirectly identifying a private citizen who volunteers as a witness.” Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Retirement Board, 388 Mass. 427, 438 (1983). The investigative exemption is intended to allow investigative officials to provide an assurance of confidentiality to private citizens so that they will speak openly to law enforcement. Bougas v. Chief of Police, 371 Mass. 59, 62 (1976). Therefore, we have redacted any information identifying the name or other identifying information of the complainant/witness. In its December 23rd response, the further argues: [T]he 911 call cannot be released. There is no portion of the record that can be redacted in order to protect the identity of the voluntary witness. Exemption (f) allows redacting 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.

Cynthia Amara, Esq. SPR26/0166 Page 6 January 30, 2026 In Camera Inspection In order to facilitate a determination as to the applicability of the Exemptions (c) and (f) claims made by the City to redact and withhold the responsive records, the City must provide this office with un-redacted copies of the responsive records for in camera inspection. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4). After I complete my review of the records, I will return the records to the City’s custody and issue an opinion on the public or exempt nature of the records. The authority to require the submission of records for an in camera inspection emanates from the Code of Massachusetts Regulations. 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4); see also G. L. c. 66, § 1. This office interprets the in camera inspection process to be analogous to that utilized by the judicial system. See Rock v. Mass. Comm’n Against Discrimination, 384 Mass. 198, 206 (1981) (administrative agency entitled deference in the interpretation of its own regulations). Records are not voluntarily submitted, but rather are submitted pursuant to an order by this office that an in camera inspection is necessary to make a proper finding. Records are submitted for the limited purpose of review. This office is not the custodian of records examined in camera, therefore, any request made to this office for records being reviewed in camera will be denied. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4)(c). This office has a long history of cooperation with governmental agencies with respect to in camera inspection. Custodians submit copies of the relevant records to this office upon a promise of confidentiality. This office does not release records reviewed in camera to anyone under any circumstances. Upon a determination of the public record status, records reviewed in camera are promptly returned to the custodian. To operate in any other fashion would seriously impede our ability to function and would certainly affect our credibility within the legal community. Please be aware, any cover letter submitted to accompany the relevant records may be subject to disclosure. Order Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide this office with un-redacted copies of the responsive records for in camera inspection without delay. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: David Chritson