Goodinson, Jena v. Seekonk, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20260504)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 24, 2026 SPR26/0504 Tracey Jamieson Records Access Officer Town of Seekonk 100 Peck Street Seekonk, MA 02771 Dear Ms. Jamieson: I have received the petition of Jena Goodinson appealing the response of the Town of Seekonk (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 23, 2026, Ms. Goodinson requested: [1] All intake, surrender, or transfer documentation, including the name, signature, and identifying information of the individual who presented and signed Batman over[;] [2] The stated reason for surrender or transfer as documented at intake[;] [3] A complete timeline of care, including dates and times Batman was received, treated, transferred, and released to Animal Control[;] [4] Any records, notes, or communications involving the individual who surrendered or transferred Batman[;] [5] Any records or documentation addressing or asserting financial responsibility attributed to the registered owner despite the absence of authorization for services[.] The Town provided responses on January 28, 2026 and February 4, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Town’s responses, Ms. Goodinson petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0504, 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

Tracey Jamieson SPR26/0504 Page 2 February 24, 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 her appeal petition, Ms. Goodinson contends: The Town has acknowledged that responsive records exist and that they are public records. However, access has been denied despite this acknowledgment. … These are routine administrative records created in the ordinary course of municipal operations. They do not constitute investigative strategy, deliberative material, or exempt criminal investigatory intelligence. ... If the Town is asserting that any exemption applies, it must specifically identify the statutory exemption under M.G.L. c. 4 §7(26) and explain how the exemption applies to each withheld record, as required by law. … The Town’s January 28th and February 4th Responses In its January 28, 2026 response, the Town acknowledged receipt of the request. In its February 4, 2026 response, the Town cited Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold responsive records. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f).

Tracey Jamieson SPR26/0504 Page 3 February 24, 2026 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. 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. Confidential investigative techniques may also be withheld indefinitely if disclosure is deemed to be prejudicial to future law enforcement activities. Bougas, 371 Mass. at 62. 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

Tracey Jamieson SPR26/0504 Page 4 February 24, 2026  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 response under Exemption (f), the Town asserted: After diligent search, the Town has located records that are responsive to your request, including Seekonk Police Department and Animal Control Officer reports and related animal control documentation regarding the matter identified in your request. … This exemption allows records custodians to withhold records that contain information on matters being actively investigated, which is the case here. … Specifically, after careful review of the records requested, it is the Police Department’s position that release of the records would detrimentally prejudice an active law enforcement investigation at this time. Although the Town claims that there is an open investigation, it is unclear how the records, in their entirety, can be withheld under Exemption (f). It is additionally unclear from the Town’s response whether the records contain confidential investigative techniques. The Town also did not demonstrate how disclosure of any segregable portion of the responsive records “would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest[,]” as required under Exemption (f). Reinstein, 378 Mass. 289-290 (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). The Town must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Ms. Goodinson with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten 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. Ms. Goodinson may appeal the substantive nature of the Town’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Tracey Jamieson SPR26/0504 Page 5 February 24, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jena Goodinson