Chritson, David v. Somerville, City of (SPR 20261065)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 3, 2026 SPR26/1065 Cynthia Amara, Esq. City Solicitor City of Somerville 93 Highland Avenue Somerville, MA Dear Attorney Amara: I have received the petition of David Chritson appealing the response of the City of Somerville (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 20, 2025, Mr. Chritson requested, “. . . (1) all radio transmissions and (2) all other audios, made or received by [an identified officer] of the Somerville Police Department, involving or associated with [an identified individual] on May 4, 2023 between 11:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m.” Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR26/0610 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 25, 2026). In my February 25th determination, I ordered the City to provide a response to Mr. Chritson’s request. The City responded on February 25th. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Chritson petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1065, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, on March 24, 2026, the City provided further responses. 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

Cynthia Amara, Esq. SPR26/1065 Page 2 April 3, 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. Chritson contends, “[t]o date, the City has failed to release any responsive records.” The City’s February 25th Response On February 25, 2026, the City asserted: [The City] did not receive your request dated 12/20/2025. To confirm this, we had our IT Department search [the City’s] emails for any communications from you on 12/20/2025 or on 1/15/2026 as alleged in your petition to the Supervisor of Public Records. No such emails were located. Therefore, we consider your request to have been received by us on 2/24/2026, the day the Supervisor of Public Records first notified us of your appeal. We have asked the appropriate officials in the Somerville Police Department to locate the requested records and will further respond to you within the time required by the Supervisor’s determination issued in this matter. Additional Records On March 24, 2026, subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the City provided a responsive record and stated, “[t]he recording begins with East 1 [an identified officer] being dispatched to the call at Assembly Row, and the final transmission is when he cleared the call. The Somerville Police were unable to edit or isolate the transmissions in between.” On March 24th, unsatisfied with this response, Mr. Chritson stated, “[the identified officer] informed me that he made recordings separate from the radio transmissions that you provided me. Can you please provide those recordings as requested in my initial public records request? . . .” The City responded, “I will inquire with the Somerville Police Department and [the identified officer] and will get back to you. I will not be able to get back to you by tomorrow.” Based on the City’s responses and in conjunction with the information provided in Mr. Chritson’s appeal, it is unclear if the Department possesses additional records responsive to the

Cynthia Amara, Esq. SPR26/1065 Page 3 April 3, 2026 request. The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). Custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). Consequently, the City must clarify whether additional records exist. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Chritson 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. Mr. Chritson may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: David Chritson