Unfiltered, Framingham v. Framingham, City of - Police Department (SPR 20260967)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 26, 2026 SPR26/0967 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.” Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR26/0743 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 12, 2026). In my March 12th determination, I ordered the Department to explain which exemption of the Public Records Law it is citing to withhold the requested record. The Department responded on March 17, 2026. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Petrini-Smith petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0967, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, on March 19, 2026, the Department 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 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 SPR26/0967 Page 2 March 26, 2026 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. Petrini-Smith contends: Despite that clear directive, the Department has now issued a new denial relying on a different set of exemptions—specifically G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f) (witness) and § 7(26)(c) (privacy). This pattern reflects a revolving substitution of exemptions after prior justifications were rejected, rather than a good-faith effort to comply with the law. It is, in effect, an attempt to “throw exemption spaghetti at the wall” to see what might stick, rather than conduct the required segregability analysis. . . . Redaction of: [n]ames[,] [c]ontact information[,] [and] [a]ny identifying personal details would fully address both the witness and privacy concerns cited. This is standard practice across Massachusetts and routinely applied in police reports released under public records law. The assertion that “there are no reasonably segregable non-exempt portions” is not credible on its face, particularly for a standard incident report that necessarily contains objective, nonidentifying information such as: [d]ate, time, and location of the incident[,] [g]eneral description of the suspect[,] [n]ature of the alleged conduct[,] [and] [p]olice response actions[.] These elements do not inherently identify a victim or witness and can be disclosed without violating either cited exemption. In response to the Department’s March 19, 2026 supplemental response, Mr. Petrini- Smith further contends, “[t]he Department’s newest position still does not satisfy its burden under the Public Records Law. This is now the latest in a series of misapplied or misappropriated exemptions. . . .” The Department’s March 17th Response In its March 17, 2026 response, the Department cited Exemptions (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested records. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c), (f).

Colleen Kehew SPR26/0967 Page 3 March 26, 2026 Exemption (c) Exemption (c) applies to: 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. 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 March 17th response, under Exemption (c), the Department asserted: This report contains privacy and identifying information of specific individuals who are victims of a crime involving nude or partially nude photographs taken without consent; in the judgement of this records custodian, releasing the report would identify a private citizen which, given the content of the report, would constitute an invasion of their personal privacy.

Colleen Kehew SPR26/0967 Page 4 March 26, 2026 The exempt witness and privacy information is pervasive throughout the requested police report. The department has determined that there are no reasonably segregable non-exempt portions that can be disclosed without revealing exempt information. In its March 19, 2026 supplemental response, the Department further asserted, “. . . if the Secretary of State’s office were to order the release of this record, the Department then clarifies that the record would need to be so heavily redacted as to be unsegregable, and provided the applicable exemptions under which it must then be redacted (G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c) and G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f)).” Based on the Departments responses under Exemption (c), it is unclear how the requested record contains intimate details of a highly personal nature, or how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. It is additionally uncertain whether any of the withheld information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. Also, the Department did not provide information with respect to the balancing test, which examines whether the public interest in obtaining the requested information outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy. Id. The Department must clarify these matters. Additionally, it remains unclear how the record can be withheld in its entirety under Exemption (c). The Department must further explain whether the record can be redacted so that segregable portions can be provided. See 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). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). 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,

Colleen Kehew SPR26/0967 Page 5 March 26, 2026 378 Mass. at 290 n.18. 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. 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):  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 March 17th response under Exemption (f), the Department asserts: This report contains sensitive witness statements for a crime involving nude or partially nude photographs taken without consent; in the judgement of this records custodian, releasing the report would identify a vulnerable private citizen who not only volunteered as a witness but is also a victim of a crime. . . . The exempt witness and privacy information is pervasive throughout the requested police report. The department has determined that there are no

Colleen Kehew SPR26/0967 Page 6 March 26, 2026 reasonably segregable non-exempt portions that can be disclosed without revealing exempt information. In its March 19th supplemental response, the Department further asserted, “. . . if the Secretary of State’s office were to order the release of this record, the Department then clarifies that the record would need to be so heavily redacted as to be unsegregable, and provided the applicable exemptions under which it must then be redacted (G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c) and G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f)).” Based on the Department’s response, to the extent that the record contains the names and identifying information of voluntary witnesses and the victim, I find the Department may permissibly withhold such information under Exemption (f). However, the Department must further clarify how the record can be withheld in its entirety under Exemption (f). The Department did not provide any supporting information to demonstrate how disclosure of any segregable 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). See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90 (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). Burden of Specificity On March 19th, subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the Department asserted, “[t]he department maintains that the entire record should be withheld under G.L. c. 41, § 97D. Given the sensitive content of the responsive record, and as the crime in question is sexual in nature, the public records law dictates that the confidentiality of this record should be maintained.” 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”). Based on the Department’s response, it remains unclear which exemption the Department is citing in order to withhold the requested record under G.L. c. 41, § 97D. 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 SPR26/0967 Page 7 March 26, 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