Nuñez, Adam v. Salem, City of - Police Department (SPR 20260483)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 25, 2026 SPR26/0483 Anne Marie Greene Principal Clerk Support Services - Records Division Salem Police Department 95 Margin Street Salem, MA 01970 Dear Ms. Greene: I have received the petition of Adam Nunez appealing the response of the Salem 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 September 30, 2025, Mr. Nunez requested “between the dates of June 27, 2024 to July 1, 2024, any physical mail or email sent to or from Salem Chief of Police . . . that contains the words ‘fusion center’ or ‘Fusion Center.’” Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/3531 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 15, 2025). In my December 15th determination, I ordered the Department to clarify its claims under Exemptions (a), (c), (f), and (n) for redacting and withholding records. Subsequently, the Department responded on January 2, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Nunez petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/0483, 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). 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

Anne Marie Greene SPR26/0483 Page 2 February 25, 2026 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. Nunez states the following: I am appealing the redactions on email attachments #4 and #5, specifically redactions withholding public records in the sections labeled: “Intelligence: Officer Safety & Awareness” (the first section of page 2 and the first section of page 21 of the attached document titled “Email attachments 4 and 5 with applicable redactions - Records Request Nunez”) “(U//FOUO) Special Events Threat Assessment July 4th Events in Massachusetts” (page 6 of the attached document titled “Email attachments 4 and 5 with applicable redactions - Records Request Nunez”) “(U//FOUO) Situational Awareness: Uncrewed Aircraft Systems (UAS) Threat, Arenas, Open-Air Venues, and Stadiums” (page 7 of the attached document titled “Email attachments 4 and 5 with applicable redactions - Records Request Nunez”) “Tactical Intelligence Report” (pages 31-39 of the attached document titled “Email attachments 4 and 5 with applicable redactions - Records Request Nunez”) The Special Events Threat Assessment and the Situational Awareness sections on pages 6 and 7 are also cut off and not fully legible. . . . I am requesting the requested records be unredacted, as well as pages 6 and 7 be resent not cut off and fully legible, in line with Massachusetts Public Records Law.

Anne Marie Greene SPR26/0483 Page 3 February 25, 2026 The Department’s January 2nd Response In its January 2, 2026 response, the Department provides two responsive records in redacted form, and states the following: Please see the attached emails #4 and #5 that were previously held in entirety. Note that the information contained in the Daily Information Summaries is comprised of information from multiple source agencies. After additional review and consultation with these originating agencies for context, they are being released with applicable redactions in accordance with Massachusetts Public Records Law guidelines. The exemptions utilized for applicable redactions were the following: Exemption A, Exemption C, Exemption F and Exemption N. 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, 545-46 (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.” 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. Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) The current definition of CORI is as follows: “Criminal offender record information,” records and data in any communicable form compiled by a Massachusetts criminal justice agency which concern an

Anne Marie Greene SPR26/0483 Page 4 February 25, 2026 identifiable individual and relate to the nature or disposition of a criminal charge, an arrest, a pre-trial proceeding, other judicial proceedings, previous hearings conducted pursuant to section 58A of chapter 276 where the defendant was detained prior to trial or released with conditions under subsection (2) of section 58A of chapter 276, sentencing, incarceration, rehabilitation, or release. Such information shall be restricted to information recorded in criminal proceedings that are not dismissed before arraignment. Criminal offender record information shall not include evaluative information, statistical and analytical reports and files in which individuals are not directly or indirectly identifiable, or intelligence information. Criminal offender record information shall be limited to information concerning persons who have attained the age of 18 and shall not include any information concerning criminal offenses or acts of delinquency committed by any person before he attained the age of 18; provided, however, that if a person under the age of 18 was adjudicated as an adult in superior court or adjudicated as an adult after transfer of a case from a juvenile session to another trial court department, information relating to such criminal offense shall be criminal offender record information. Criminal offender record information shall not include information concerning any offenses which are not punishable by incarceration. G. L. c. 6, § 167. In its January 2nd response, under Exemption (a) and CORI, the Department argues the following: Exemption (a) applies because these records contain information protected from disclosure by statute, including Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) under G.L. c. 6, §§ 167–178. 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 shall not apply to records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). 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.

Anne Marie Greene SPR26/0483 Page 5 February 25, 2026 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 January 2nd response, under Exemption (c), the Department argues the following: These records were also redacted per Massachusetts Public Records Law, G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Exemption (c) applies to these records as they contain highly personal and intimate information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. The records at issue contain personal and sensitive information relating to identifiable individuals. This includes information concerning private individuals, contextual details tied to personal and professional associations, and sensitive identifying information that is not publicly available. Disclosure of this information would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy (such as date of birth, phone numbers, license numbers issued by the RMV etc.) as well as information regarding juveniles and medical information. Release could expose individuals to reputational harm, mischaracterization, or undue scrutiny, particularly because the records involve non-public assessments and intelligence-sharing contexts in which information is often preliminary, incomplete, and shared with an expectation of confidentiality. While the Public Records Law recognizes a general public interest in transparency, that interest is limited in this instance. The requested records do not concern final agency actions or confirmed findings, but rather internal, non-public assessments shared for intelligence and analytical purposes. Disclosure would not

Anne Marie Greene SPR26/0483 Page 6 February 25, 2026 meaningfully enhance the public’s understanding of governmental operations, yet it would significantly intrude upon the privacy rights of the individuals involved. Accordingly, the privacy interests at stake outweigh any public interest in disclosure. 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 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):

Anne Marie Greene SPR26/0483 Page 7 February 25, 2026  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 January 2nd response, under Exemption (f), the Department argues the following: These records were also redacted, per Massachusetts Public Records Law G.L. c. 4, sec. 7, cl (26)(f). Exemption (f), the investigatory exemption, which provides custodians a basis for withholding: 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 as well as information relating to ongoing investigations that are being withheld as disclosure could alert suspects to the activities of investigative officials; which is the case with these records. Confidential investigative techniques were (and per the Exemption) may also be withheld indefinitely if disclosure is deemed to be prejudicial to future law enforcement activities which is also applicable with these records. These records also contain BOLO alerts (Be on the Look Out) used by law enforcement to notify other officers of wanted individuals (aka suspects) involved in active criminal cases. These all-points bulletins are utilized by the officers for the detainment and possible apprehension of the suspects wanted. Additionally, these records also pertain to specific operational readiness, intelligence gathering and tactical emergency preparedness by law enforcement and security agencies for July Fourth events in Massachusetts that are typically large gatherings attended by the public. This information includes identifiers, possible suspicious behaviors, and items that could put attendees of the public events at risk if divulged as well as include situational awareness training for law enforcement personnel regarding the use of Uncrewed Aircraft Systems (UAS) by individuals looking to utilize this equipment for unlawful purposes that increase public safety risk.

Anne Marie Greene SPR26/0483 Page 8 February 25, 2026 Exemption (n) Exemption (n) applies to: records, including, but not limited to, blueprints, plans, policies, procedures and schematic drawings, which relate to internal layout and structural elements, security measures, emergency preparedness, threat or vulnerability assessments, or any other records relating to the security or safety of persons or buildings, structures, facilities, utilities, transportation, cyber security or other infrastructure located within the commonwealth, the disclosure of which, in the reasonable judgment of the record custodian, subject to review by the supervisor of public records under subsection (c) of section 10 of chapter 66, is likely to jeopardize public safety or cyber security. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(n). Exemption (n) allows for the withholding of certain records which if released would jeopardize public safety. The first prong of Exemption (n) examines “whether, and to what degree, the record sought resembles the records listed as examples in the statute;” specifically, the “inquiry is whether, and to what degree, the record is one a terrorist ‘would find useful to maximize damage.’” People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280, 289-90 (2017). The second prong of Exemption (n) examines “the factual and contextual support for the proposition that disclosure of the record is ‘likely to jeopardize public safety.’” Id. at 289-90. The PETA decision further provides that “[b]ecause the records custodian must exercise ‘reasonable judgment’ in making that determination, the primary focus on review is whether the custodian has provided sufficient factual heft for the supervisor of public records or the reviewing court to conclude that a reasonable person would agree with the custodian’s determination given the context of the particular case.” Id. PETA also provides that “[t]hese two prongs of exemption (n) must be analyzed together, because there is an inverse correlation between them. That is, the more the record sought resembles the records enumerated in exemption (n), the lower the custodian’s burden in demonstrating ‘reasonable judgment’ and vice versa.” PETA, at 290. In its January 2nd response, under Exemption (n), the Department argues the following: Finally, these records were also redacted, per Massachusetts Public Records Law G. L. c. 4, § 7 (26)(n). Exemption (n) which allows for the withholding of certain records which, if released, could be seen to likely jeopardize public safety/security. The records in question contain information that is sensitive to public safety and security, including threat assessments, officer safety alerts, and other

Anne Marie Greene SPR26/0483 Page 9 February 25, 2026 vulnerability-related information. In the Department’s reasonable judgment, disclosure of these records could jeopardize public safety (The disclosure of threat assessments poses risks to public safety by potentially alerting perpetrators, enabling them to modify plans, conceal evidence, and or evade detection. Such disclosures of these records may also stigmatize individuals, resulting in the improper use of sensitive information, provoking disproportionate responses, and deter legitimate reporting, thereby compromising preventive safety measures. Similarly, releasing officer safety alerts, including active shooter locations and or suspect information may jeopardize investigations, endanger law enforcement personnel, incite public panic, and undermine operational integrity and public trust, ultimately impairing the ability of authorities to maintain public safety). This is particularly true where these records involve assessments tied to upcoming and annual events, crowd conditions, and identified safety concerns. Releasing such information could also inadvertently reveal sensitive data about the target or institution, creating new vulnerabilities The Department’s primary responsibility is to ensure the safety and security of the public and its personnel. Releasing the requested information that has been redacted could compromise that responsibility by revealing details that may be exploited to the detriment of public safety. In Camera Inspection In order to facilitate a determination as to the applicability of the Exemptions (a), (c), (f), and (n) claims made by the Department to redact the responsive records, the Department 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 Department’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

Anne Marie Greene SPR26/0483 Page 10 February 25, 2026 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 Department 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: Adam Nunez