Lamontagne, Chris v. New Bedford, City of - Office of The City Solicitor (SPR 20260764)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 1, 2026 SPR26/0764 Katherine Schuko, Esq. Associate City Solicitor City of New Bedford Solicitor’s Officer 133 William Street New Bedford, MA 02740 Dear Attorney Schuko: I have received the petition of Chris Lamontagne appealing the response of the City of New Bedford (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 13, 2025, Mr. Lamontagne requested, “[c]an you please preserve body cam footage and any or all other supporting evidence for this incident?” On December 10, 2025, Mr. Lamontagne clarified, “I meant to request to have the evidence sent as well.” The City responded on January 16, 2026 and January 23, 2026. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Mr. Lamontagne petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0764, was opened as a result. On March 24, 2026, subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the City provided a further response. 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 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

Katherine Schuko, Esq. SPR26/0764 Page 2 April 1, 2026 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. Lamontagne contends: . . . While I do not dispute the City’s obligation to protect legitimately private information, I believe the exemptions have been applied too broadly in this instance and obscure material necessary to understand government decision- making. . . . The redacted investigatory materials appear to be the only records that would explain how the City resolved these discrepancies and reached its conclusions. Disclosure of officer reasoning, evaluative notes, or decision-making processes in this context would not prejudice effective law enforcement, but rather would serve the public interest by providing transparency into how allegations involving City employees are assessed and documented. I am not seeking the disclosure of witness identities or private personal information. I am seeking access to non-exempt portions of investigatory notes or summaries that explain the City’s evaluation of conflicting evidence and its basis for characterizing the incident as reflected in the final report. . . . For these reasons, I request that the Supervisor of Records order the City to produce the withheld investigatory materials with any truly exempt personal information narrowly redacted, or in the alternative, provide a more particularized justification demonstrating how disclosure would probably prejudice effective law enforcement. Further, on March 24, 2026, Mr. Lamontagne clarified: . . . the core of my appeal (SPR26-0764) specifically concerns the officer’s notes that were redacted or omitted, rather than just the BWC footage. The BWC footage is only one component of the record. My concern involves the documentation provided by the officer who took over the scene. This officer is the President of the Police Union, and there is a significant question regarding the neutrality of the reporting. The current redactions in the notes prevent a full understanding of how the incident was transitioned to his control and why the

Katherine Schuko, Esq. SPR26/0764 Page 3 April 1, 2026 final narrative appears to be framed in favor of the housing specialist, despite evidence to the contrary. Based on Mr. Lamontagne’s appeal petition, I understand that he is appealing only the redaction of investigatory materials under Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. The City’s January 16th and 23rd Responses In the City’s January 16, 2026 and January 23, 2026 responses, the City cited Exemptions (a), (c), and (f) of the Public Records Law to redact the responsive records. 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. 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. Id. 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., 388 Mass. at 438. 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.

Katherine Schuko, Esq. SPR26/0764 Page 4 April 1, 2026 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. 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  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 16, 2026 and January 23, 2026 responses under Exemption (f), the City provided redacted body camera footage, and asserted in both responses: The City has redacted investigating officer screens/notes . . . . The redacted materials consist of investigatory materials, necessarily compiled out of public view. Redaction allows the City’s Police Department’s investigators to continue to provide assurances of confidentiality and privacy to witnesses and complaining parties. Disclosure would prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement because it may cause victims, witnesses, or complaining parties not to come forward in the future due to fear that their private, identifying information may

Katherine Schuko, Esq. SPR26/0764 Page 5 April 1, 2026 become known or, due to fear of retaliation. As disclosure and the potential outcomes of disclosure are not in the public’s interest, redactions have been applied accordingly. On March 24, 2026, subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the City stated: To further clarify, redactions were applied to the witness dates of birth and witness ages, which were written down. The corresponding audio was also redacted for the same reasoning (personally identifying information was stated specifically, age and date of births of witnesses). Additionally, the City redacted responding officers’ cruiser screens which captured ongoing police calls and investigations unrelated to the instant matter for the reasons set forth in the City’s responses of January 16, 2026, and January 23, 2026, respectively. The City did not redact or withhold witness statements. All witness statements were produced through the production of the body worn camera footage and through the fulfilment of a separate request for the police report (which is not the subject of the appeal). Based on the City’s responses, to the extent that the footage contains identifying information of a voluntary witness, I find the City may permissibly redact the information under Exemption (f). However, the City did not demonstrate how disclosure of the remaining redacted portions of the footage “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). Specifically, the City must clarify what information was redacted from the officers’ notes, apart from identifying witness information, and demonstrate how this information can be redacted 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 City must clarify this matter. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Lamontagne 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. Mr. Lamontagne may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Katherine Schuko, Esq. SPR26/0764 Page 6 April 1, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Chris Lamontagne