Shader, Deliah v. Shrewsbury, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20261105)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 7, 2026 SPR26/1105 Chief Kevin Anderson Records Access Officer Shrewsbury Police Department 106 Maple Avenue Shrewsbury, MA 01545 Dear Chief Anderson: I have received the petition of Deliah Shader appealing the response of the Shrewsbury 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 2, 2026, Ms. Shader requested: . . . regarding the accident on 2/25/26, report #26-6373 . . . I am formally requesting that the department preserve and secure all digital evidence related to this case, including: [1] All Body-Worn Camera (BWC) footage from all responding officers (including the hospital follow-up). [2] All Cruiser Dashcam footage from all units at the scene. [3] All Dispatch audio and CAD logs. On March 18, 2026, Ms. Shader further clarified her request as follows: To ensure I have a complete and accurate understanding, I am requesting: [1] The full CAD report, including the complete event log and timestamps. [2] Confirmation as to whether a supplemental report was completed, and a copy if so. Clarification regarding the enforcement action taken (citation vs. warning), as this differs from what was previously communicated. [3] Additionally, I am seeking clarification as to why [an identified individual’s] vehicle was included in the report . . . . I also previously requested any available footage related to the issuance of a citation to [an identified individual] at the hospital while he was receiving medical attention, and would appreciate confirmation as to whether that footage is available. 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

Chief Kevin Anderson SPR26/1105 Page 2 April 7, 2026 The Department responded on March 2, 2026 and March 23, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Department’s March 23rd response, Ms. Shader petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1105, was opened as a result. On March 30, 2026, subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the Department 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 order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Att’y 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. The Department’s March 2nd and March 23rd Responses On March 2, 2026, the Department confirmed receipt of Ms. Shader’s request. On March 23, 2026, the Department responded: Regarding the CAD report: this is an internal dispatch log that we do not typically produce as part of a standard records request; however, I will look into whether I can provide a copy to you and will follow up either way. I can confirm there are two narratives attached to this incident: the original from [an identified officer] and a supplemental narrative entered by [an identified officer]. I have directed our clerks to prepare a redacted copy of the full report, including both narratives, for you. I have done a preliminary check and it appears there is no body-worn camera (BWC) footage from the hospital. To protect the privacy of bystanders and other patients in sensitive medical areas, officers typically do not activate cameras during routine matters in those facilities. It is possible the officer did not activate his camera when serving the citation. I will check with the officer and double

Chief Kevin Anderson SPR26/1105 Page 3 April 7, 2026 check our data to ensure the video was not mislabeled or miscategorized (this happens occasionally). Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Shader contends: 1. Withholding of CAD Logs: The department has refused to provide the full CAD Event History, claiming it is an “internal log.” Under Massachusetts law, CAD logs are public records and must be produced, including all time-stamped remarks and unit status changes. 2. Improper Redaction: I have evidence from system audit logs indicating that the department redacted audio of an officer making inappropriate comments after a formal preservation request was made. Under Massachusetts law, privacy exemptions cannot be used to redact or withhold records of official conduct. 3. Missing Footage: The department claims no body-worn camera footage exists from the hospital interaction, despite the officer’s camera displaying a recording indicator during the issuance of a citation. On March 30, 2026, subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the Department provided a redacted “CAD log” and stated, “I also requested that the edits you mentioned be removed from the body camera videos we previously sent you. An updated copy will be sent to you today as a link in a separate email with instructions on how to view the video.” On March 30th, unsatisfied with this response, Ms. Shader further objected to the following: Intentional Redaction of Officer Misconduct: The department has now provided a version of the body-worn camera (BWC) footage that includes audio previously edited out without explanation. . . . Inconsistencies in Official Logs: The “Full” CAD Incident Detail report provided today shows all units "Cleared" the scene at 16:36 (4:36 PM). However, the department’s own email today admits an officer arrived at the hospital to serve a citation. There is no official timestamp or record of this hospital arrival in the CAD log. I am concerned that the department is still withholding supplemental logs or that official police actions were conducted “off-book” to avoid a paper trail. Request for Investigation into Compliance: I believe these findings demonstrate that the department did not provide “all segregable portions” of the record in their initial response as required by M.G.L. c. 66, § 10.

Chief Kevin Anderson SPR26/1105 Page 4 April 7, 2026 Additional Records In an additional response on March 30, 2026, the Department confirmed that it provided Ms. Shader with the “[b]ody camera footage with the redactions mentioned removed [and] CAD log containing the additional requested information[.]” The Department additionally confirmed that it “. . . cannot fulfill the request for body camera footage from the hospital because the officer did not activate his camera. Therefore, this department has no material related to that request to provide.” On March 31, 2026, Ms. Shader asserted, “[a]t this time, my appeal is not resolved. While I have received some materials in response to my March 2nd request, there are still outstanding items that have not been fully provided or clarified.” Based on the Department’s responses and in conjunction with the information provided in Ms. Shader’s appeal, it is unclear if the Department possesses additional records responsive to the request. Specifically, it is unclear whether the Department possesses “supplemental logs” responsive to Ms. Shader’s request for “[t]he full CAD report, including the complete event log and timestamps.” 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 Department must clarify whether additional records exist. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Shader 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. Ms. Shader may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Deliah Shader