Petrini-Smith, Brian v. Framingham, City of - Police Department (SPR 20260743)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 12, 2026 SPR26/0743 Colleen Kehew Records Access Officer Framingham Police Department 1 William Welch Way Framingham, MA 01702 Dear Ms. Kehew: I have received the petition of Brian Petrini-Smith appealing the response of the Framingham 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 February 12, 2026, Mr. Petrini-Smith requested, “. . . [the] police report for a 2/9/26 incident at . . . Worcester r[oa]d, a stalking or inappropriate picture taking in a restroom type call.” The Department responded on February 24, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Petrini-Smith petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/0743, 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. 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. 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

Colleen Kehew SPR26/0743 Page 2 March 12, 2026 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. Petrini-Smith contends: 1. The cited statute does not apply to the alleged conduct . . . . 2. Even if portions are exempt, segregable information must be released . . . . 3. Public safety considerations[:] . . . Limited disclosure of non-identifying details—particularly suspect description and incident information—would serve a legitimate public safety purpose by helping the community remain alert and encouraging additional victims or witnesses to come forward. . . . The Department’s February 24th Response In its February 24, 2026 response, the Department stated, “[t]he Framingham Police Department must deny your request on the grounds that providing the requested records would violate G.L. c. 41, § 97D, which states in pertinent part . . . .” Burden of Specificity In this case, the Department has not met its burden in responding to the request. The Department is advised that under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be on the custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption to withhold or redact records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based”). See also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511; Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear which exemption the Department is citing in order to withhold the requested records. Consequently, the Department must explain the specific exemption or exemptions of the Public Records Law that apply. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Petrini-Smith 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

Colleen Kehew SPR26/0743 Page 3 March 12, 2026 pre@sec.state.ma.us. Mr. Petrini-Smith may further appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Brian Petrini-Smith