Twomey, Frederick v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20260372)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 13, 2026 SPR26/0372 Christine O’Donnell, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel Office of the Legal Advisor Boston Police Department 1 City Hall Square Boston, MA 02201 Dear Attorney O’Donnell: I have received the petition of Frederick Twomey 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 9, 2026, Mr. Twomey requested: …records related to Incident / Offense Report #252105026[.] I am the victim’s duly authorized Power of Attorney and am making this request on her behalf. A copy of the Power of Attorney is attached to this request. - The Body Worn Camera footage of the incident. - The CAD / Dispatch Log regarding this incident. - The 911 Call Audio relating to the incident. … On January 13, 2026, Mr. Twomey modified his request to, “…the CAD event number(s), incident number(s), and call type(s) for the ‘different incident’ that placed officers on scene at or near … Endicott Street beginning at approximately 10:35 pm on December 12, 2025, including all associated: CAD logs[,] radio transmissions[,] body-worn camera footage (if any)[,] [and] officer activity logs[.]” The Department responded on January 13, 2026, and assigned reference number B000098-010926 to this request. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Twomey petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0372, 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 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. SPR26/0372 Page 2 February 13, 2026 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. The Department’s January 13th Response In its January 13, 2026 response to Mr. Twomey’s January 9th request, the Department provided responsive records and stated, “[t]here is no body worn camera footage related to I252105026 nor is there a 911 call as officers were at that location responding to a different incident.” Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Twomey contends: …the Department did not identify the CAD event number, call type, or any records associated with that different incident, nor did it state that such records do not exist or are exempt from disclosure. Following this response, I submitted follow-up correspondence seeking clarification and identification of the prior incident referenced in the police report. The Department did not respond to those follow-up requests. … Additional Records Based on the Department’s response and in conjunction with the information provided in Mr. Twomey’s appeal, it is unclear if the Department possesses additional records responsive to Mr. Twomey’s modified request. Specifically, it is unclear whether the Department possesses “the CAD event number, call type, or any records associated with that different incident.” The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). Custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR26/0372 Page 3 February 13, 2026 custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). Consequently, the Department must clarify whether additional records exist. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Twomey with a response to the 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. Twomey 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: Frederick Twomey