Walsh, Patrick v. Norwood, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20260337)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 12, 2026 SPR26/0337 Officer Kevin Riley Records Access Officer Norwood Police Department 137 Nahatan Street Norwood, MA 02062 Dear Officer Riley: I have received the petition of Patrick Walsh appealing the response of the Norwood 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 6, 2026, Mr. Walsh requested the following records: [1] Body-Worn Camera (BWC) Footage: All video and audio recordings from any and all body-worn cameras worn by officers during the arrest of [an identified individual] in late December 2025 (approximately December 30–31, 2025). [2] Station/Interview Room Footage: Any video or audio recordings of custodial interviews, booking procedures, or statements made by [an identified individual] following his arrest. [3] Police Incident Reports: Copies of all incident, arrest, and supplemental reports associated with this case. The Department assigned reference number P014062-122825 to this request. Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR26/0109 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 27, 2026). In my January 27th determination, I found that the Department’s response did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. The Department provided a response on January 28, 2026. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Walsh petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0337, was opened as a result. 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

Officer Kevin Riley SPR26/0337 Page 2 February 12, 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 his appeal petition, Mr. Walsh contends: … Exemption (a) does not permit the blanket withholding of an entire record. … Reports covered by § 97D should be released in redacted form to satisfy the public’s right to oversee law enforcement. Additionally, [the Department] has failed to demonstrate how Exemption (f) applies to this request. Finally, the citation of 950 CMR 32.08 regarding active litigation is a misapplication of the law. … The Department’s January 28th Response In its January 28, 2026 response, the Department withheld responsive records, citing Exemptions (a) and (f) of the Public Records Law and asserting, “…[t]he records requested are the subject matter of a dispute in active litigation….” G. L. c. 4, § 7 (26) (a), (f). Pending Litigation 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor:

Officer Kevin Riley SPR26/0337 Page 3 February 12, 2026 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. On February 2, 2026, the Department provided the docket number of the pending litigation. This office has reviewed the trial court’s docket and verified that the criminal litigation, relating to the records that are the subject of Mr. Walsh’s appeal, is active and ongoing in Dedham District Court. See Commonwealth v. Ricardo Alexandre, (Dedham District Court Docket No. 2554CR001868) (December 31, 2025). In light of the pending litigation, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Additionally, I decline to opine on the applicability of Exemptions (a) and (f) to the requested records. It should be noted that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Patrick Walsh