Walsh, Patrick v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20260333)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 17, 2026 SPR26/0333 Christine O’Donnell, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel Boston Police Department 1 City Hall Square 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 November 19, 2025, Mr. Walsh requested, “body camera footage of the officers that first responded to the Sept 5th 2025 shooting around . . . Tremont St Roxbury Crossing.” Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR25/3610 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 19, 2025). In my December 19th determination, I found that the Department had not met its burden to withhold responsive records, in their entirety, under G. L. c. 41, § 98F, and G. L. c. 119, §§ 38, 60A, and 65, as they operate through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. The Department responded on January 27, 2026. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Walsh petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0333, 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. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also 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. SPR26/0333 Page 2 February 17, 2026 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 Department’s January 27th Response On January 27, 2026, the Department withheld responsive records in their entirety pursuant to Exemptions (a) and (f) of the Public Records Law. Under Exemption (a) the Department cited the statutes, G. L. c. 41, § 98F, and G. L. c. 119, §§ 38, 60A, and 65. Current Appeal In his January 31, 2026 appeal to this office, Mr. Walsh stated, “… the claim that the entirety of the BWC footage is exempt because of a juvenile’s presence is legally insufficient. The presence of a juvenile bystander does not render a public record exempt in its entirety … The Department claims witnesses haven’t been interviewed. If months have passed since the murder, this is likely a lie. I’m asking for the initial response footage, not the ongoing detective work. The Department claims that, if a juvenile appears, the case is still open, or any investigative tactics are used then, the footage is exempt. They are essentially saying their entire BWC program is exempt from transparency, which contradicts the Mass. Police Reform Act.” Exemption (a) Exemption (a), known as the statutory exemption, permits the withholding of records that are: specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). A governmental entity may use the statutory exemption as a basis for withholding requested materials where the language of the exempting statute relied upon expressly or necessarily implies that the public’s right to inspect records under the Public Records Law is restricted. See Att’y Gen. v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 154 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-546 (1977). This exemption creates two categories of exempt records. The first category includes records that are specifically exempt from disclosure by statute. Such statutes expressly state that such a record either “shall not be a public record,” “shall be kept confidential” or “shall not be subject to the disclosure provision of the Public Records Law.”

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR26/0333 Page 3 February 17, 2026 The second category under the exemption includes records deemed exempt under statute by necessary implication. Such statutes expressly limit the dissemination of particular records to a defined group of individuals or entities. A statute is not a basis for exemption if it merely lists individuals or entities to whom the records are to be provided; the statute must expressly limit access to the listed individuals or entities. G. L. c. 41, § 98F In its response, the Department cites G. L. c. 41, § 98F, which provides in pertinent part as follows: Each police department and each college or university to which officers have been appointed pursuant to section 63 of chapter 22C shall make, keep and maintain a daily log, written in a form that can be easily understood, recording, in chronological order, all responses to valid complaints received, crimes reported, the names, addresses of persons arrested and the charges against such persons arrested. All entries in said daily logs shall, unless otherwise provided in law, be public records available without charge to the public during regular business hours and at all other reasonable times; provided, however, that the following entries shall be kept in a separate log and shall not be a public record nor shall such entry be disclosed to the public, or any individual not specified in section 97D: (i) any entry in a log which pertains to a handicapped individual who is physically or mentally incapacitated to the degree that said person is confined to a wheelchair or is bedridden or requires the use of a device designed to provide said person with mobility, (ii) any information concerning responses to reports of domestic violence, rape or sexual assault, (iii) any entry concerning the arrest of a person for assault, assault and battery or violation of a protective order where the victim is a family or household member, as defined in section 1 of chapter 209A, or (iv) any entry concerning the arrest of a person who has not yet reached 18 years of age. G. L. c. 41, § 98F. Under G. L. c. 41, § 98F, the Department states, “[w]hile the record you are seeking is not an entry in the daily police log and does not relate to an arrest of a juvenile, the record you are seeking involves a juvenile; therefore, by necessary implication, this record is not a public record and is exempt.” G. L. c. 119, § 38, 60A, and 65 In its November 21st response, the Department cites G. L. c. 119, §§ 38, 60A, and 65, which provide in pertinent parts as follows: All hearings under sections 1 to 38A, inclusive, except those related to court orders to not resuscitate or to withdraw life-sustaining medical treatment for

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR26/0333 Page 4 February 17, 2026 children in the custody of the department under a care and protection order, shall be closed to the general public. It shall be unlawful to publish the names of persons before the court in any closed hearing. G. L. c. 119, § 38. The records of a youthful offender proceeding conducted pursuant to an indictment shall be open to public inspection in the same manner and to the same extent as adult criminal court records. All other records of the court in cases of delinquency arising under sections fifty-two to fifty-nine, inclusive, shall be withheld from public inspection except with the consent of a justice of such court; provided, however, that such records shall be open, at all reasonable times, to inspection by the child proceeded against, his parents, guardian or attorney; provided further, that nothing herein shall be construed to provide access to privileged or confidential communications and information; and provided further, that said protections shall be construed to include information and communications entered at the indictment. G. L. c. 119, § 60A. Courts shall designate suitable times for the hearing of cases of children under 18 years of age, which shall be called the juvenile session, for which a separate docket and record shall be kept. Said session shall be separate from that for the trial of criminal cases, shall not, except as otherwise expressly provided, be held in conjunction with other business of the court, and shall be held in rooms not used for criminal trials; and in places where no separate juvenile courtroom is provided, hearings, so far as possible, shall be held in chambers. The court shall exclude the general public from juvenile sessions admitting only such persons as may have a direct interest in the case, except in cases where the commonwealth has proceeded by indictment. A complaint under section sixty-three may be heard in such juvenile session. G. L. c. 119, § 65. Under G. L. c. 119, § 38, the Department states, “…body camera footage of juveniles requires the same protection that is required under c. 119. Therefore, body camera footage of juveniles is exemption [sic] under statutory Exemption A and is prevented from public disclosure.” Under G. L. c. 119, §§ 60A, 65, the Department argues, “[t]he language of this statute contemplates that the identity of juveniles be protected from public inspection except in very limited circumstances and that juvenile records should only be available to certain individuals and not the public at large. This is significant because it shows that the identity of the juveniles is not subject to public disclosure. Section 65 establishes requirements for juvenile sessions and the presence of minors and requires courts to keep separate dockets and records for such sessions.

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR26/0333 Page 5 February 17, 2026 G.L. c. 119, ss. 65. This is another example where proceedings and information involving persons under 18 is not open to the public.” Further the Department argues, “[t]he law that requires police logs concerning the arrests of individuals under the age of 18 to be kept separately and specifically stating that such records are not public records along with the laws that require juvenile court proceedings and records to be closed to the public and not subject to public records show the intent to protect this population. Disclosing information on persons under 18 could cause unreasonable harm and personal embarrassment. The previously mentioned statutes by necessary implication exempt the body worn camera footage from public disclosure pursuant to Exemption A in order to protect persons under the age of 18.” 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. 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

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR26/0333 Page 6 February 17, 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. 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. 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 requester; and information voluntarily provided by an individual or entity to aid in the investigation. On January 27th response, the Department asserted: The Department is denying your request at this time because the records are part of an open and ongoing investigation involving a fatality; therefore, disclosure will prejudice future law enforcement efforts for the reasons provided herein. Disclosure of the requested records at this time would interfere with enforcement proceedings and the investigatory process. The requested records are investigatory materials compiled out of public view. The body-worn camera videos are part of the investigation of this incident and disclosure at this time would prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure is not in the public interest. Disclosure at this time would prejudice effective law enforcement because officers are in the process of gathering, reviewing and analyzing evidence as well as

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR26/0333 Page 7 February 17, 2026 identifying and interviewing witnesses. Disclosure at this time would prejudice effective law enforcement because prospective witnesses have not been interviewed. Disclosure of these records would disclose confidential investigative techniques, procedures or sources of information. Disclosure of these records could inhibit the investigatory process by influencing witness statements. Encouraging citizens and prospective witnesses to come forward and speak with police and the ability of the police department to establish trust with the community are essential elements of the investigatory process and effective law enforcement. Without this collaborative component, investigations will become more difficult and will impede the investigatory process. The collaboration between the public and the police and encouraging the public to Cooperate with police investigations are reasons contemplated by the investigatory exemption. If prospective witnesses do not come forward, the investigatory process will be hampered. Releasing these records at this time may influence potential witnesses thereby compromising the investigatory process and enforcement proceedings. Such a result will prejudice the ongoing investigation and the possibility of effective law enforcement which is not in the public interest. The Supreme Judicial Court has acknowledged 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.” Id. at 62. The Department is also denying your request at this time because the records are related to pending criminal proceedings; therefore, disclosure will prejudice future law enforcement efforts for the reasons stated below. Any disclosure of the records would involve “investigatory materials necessity compiled out of 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.” See G.L. c.4, § 7(26) (f). The disclosure of these records would be prejudicial to effective law enforcement and the prosecution as these records may reveal the Commonwealth’s case before trial. Where the Department has explained that the record pertains to an active and ongoing investigation and that disclosure would alert potential suspects to the activities of investigative officials and “. . . may influence potential witnesses thereby compromising the investigatory process and enforcement proceedings[,]” I find the Department may permissibly claim Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested records at this time. It should

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR26/0333 Page 8 February 17, 2026 be noted that a change in the status of the investigation could impact the applicability of Exemption (f). Where the responsive records may permissibly be withheld under Exemption (f) at this time, I decline to opine on the applicability of Exemption (a) to the responsive records. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Walsh is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Patrick Walsh