Uhl, Lucas v. Everett, City of - Police Department (SPR 20260959)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 31, 2026 SPR26/0959 Captain Christopher Hannon Records Access Officer Everett Police Department 45 Elm Street Everett, MA 02149 Dear Captain Hannon: I have received the petition of Lucas Uhl, Esq., of the Boston Globe, appealing the response of the Everett 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 March 3, 2026, Stephanie Ebbert, of the Boston Globe, requested the following records: [1] Any and all complaints, incident reports, arrest reports, or investigative reports involving [an identified individual] of [an identified address] since Sept. 9, 2025, the date of my previous request[;] [2] Log items or reports on any other calls for service at of [an identified address] since Sept. 9, 2025[;] [3] Log items or reports on any other calls for service at [an identified address] that were not included in my prior request[.] The Department provided responses on March 9, 2026, March 11, 2026 and March 17, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Department’s responses, Attorney Uhl petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0959, was opened as a result. Subsequently, I learned that the Department sent a further response to this Office on March 18, 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). 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

Captain Christopher Hannon SPR26/0959 Page 2 March 31, 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 March 17th appeal, Attorney Uhl asserts, “… the Department fails to satisfy its burden of proving that Exemption (a) applies to the requested record because, even after [the Boston Globe’s] repeated attempts to clarify, the Department refuses to state which statute or statutes state or necessarily imply “that the public’s right to inspect records under the Public Records Law is restricted.” See Guide at 15. Further, the Department does not provide any reason for withholding the requested record, but instead summarily states that it “is exempt under MA Public Records Law under GL c 4 S 7(26)(a).” See Exhibit B at 3. Because the Department fails to satisfy its burden, despite having multiple opportunities to do so, the requested record is presumptively public and must be disclosed.” The Department’s March 9th, March 11th, March 17th and March 18th Responses In its March 9, 2026 response, the Department stated, “[t]here is only one report involving the above party since 9/9/2025 and that report is exempt under MA Public Records Law under GL c 4 S 7(26)(a). There are 2 logs attached.” In its March 11, 2026 response, the Department stated, “I have provided the specific exemption.” In its March 17, 2026 response, the Department stated, “I have attached a list of exemptions to public records law from mass.gov.” In its March 18, 2026 response, the Department stated, “[i]n regards to appeal number SPR26/0959, the requested report is an on going investigation (GL c 4 S 7 (26)(f)) of a sexual assault case (GL c 4 S 7 (26)(a)). This covers two exemptions under MA Public Records Law.” 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).

Captain Christopher Hannon SPR26/0959 Page 3 March 31, 2026 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, 54 (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. In its March 18, 2026 response, the Department stated, “[i]n regards to appeal number SPR26/0959 … [there] is an on going investigation … of a sexual assault case (GL c 4 S 7 (26)(a)).” The Department is advised that for Exemption (a) to apply, the Department must cite a statute and said statute must either expressly state that the withheld record is not subject to disclosure under the Public Records Law, or limit dissemination of said information to a defined group or individuals or entities. The Department must clarify this. 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

Captain Christopher Hannon SPR26/0959 Page 4 March 31, 2026 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 289-290. 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. 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 requester; and information voluntarily provided by an individual or entity to aid in the investigation. Under Exemption (f), the Department advised, “… the requested report is an on going investigation (GL c 4 S 7 (26)(f)).” Although the Department indicates in its March 18, 2026 response that it has an open investigation regarding the requested record, it remains unclear how the record, in its entirety, can be withheld under Exemption (f). It is additionally uncertain from the Department’s response whether the record contains confidential investigative techniques that would be prejudicial to the ongoing investigation if disclosed. The Department also did not demonstrate how disclosure of any portion of the responsive record “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 Department must clarify these matters.

Captain Christopher Hannon SPR26/0959 Page 5 March 31, 2026 Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Attorney Uhl 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. Attorney Uhl may 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: Lucas Uhl, Esq. Stephanie Ebbert