Wheelhouse, Jeffery v. Waltham, City of - Police Department (SPR 20261303)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 17, 2026 SPR26/1303 Luke Stanton, Esq. Assistant City Solicitor Waltham Police Department 155 Lexington Street Waltham, MA 02452 Dear Attorney Stanton: I have received the petition of Jeffery Wheelhouse appealing the response of the Waltham 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 January 29, 2026, Mr. Wheelhouse requested: [1] [A]ll records prepared for, reviewed, or used during the two most recent monthly audits of the ALPR system access, hit, and retained data conducted by the Chief of Police as of January 29, 2026[.] [2] [A]ll records generated during or resulting from the two most recent monthly audits of the ALPR system access, hit, and retained data conducted by the Chief of Police as of January 29, 2026[.] The Department responded on February 13, 2026, February 17, 2026, and March 30, 2026, and assigned reference number R000057-012926 to this request. Unsatisfied with the responses, Mr. Wheelhouse petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1303, was opened as a result. 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

Luke Stanton, Esq. SPR26/1303 Page 2 April 17, 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 appeal petition, Mr. Wheelhouse contends: I believe the response I received does not satisfy Massachusetts Public Records Law. Specifically: 1. It covers the incorrect time period. 2. It improperly redacts information in excess of what exemption F allows. 3. It is incomplete. 1. Incorrect Time Period I requested information used in and produced by the two most recent departmental audits that occurred before January 26th. The initial organizational PDF-format access reports I received appear to cover the full calendar month of January 2026. . . . The subsequent CSV-format reports I received were for the entire months of January and February, neither of which could conceivably have been used in audits performed prior to January 26th. 2. Improper Redaction . . . No “identification of the applicability of each cited exemption or privilege to each portion of the withheld record or records” was given to justify the redaction of the license plate and search reason fields. . . . Notably, there were some mistakes with the redaction of the initial response, inadvertently revealing that the redacted “reason” field tends to include only short notes such as “investigation” or “Brookline PD Assist.” It is hard to imagine how knowledge that officers participate in investigations and assist other departments could “so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest.”

Luke Stanton, Esq. SPR26/1303 Page 3 April 17, 2026 The subsequent CSV-format response was even more thoroughly redacted. Beyond name, license plate, and search reason, additional fields were blanked out, leaving little more than the unique identifier for each record, the date it was created and, for some but not records [sic], a case number. The redaction of which was not disclosed or explained. 3. Incomplete Response . . . I might reasonably anticipate the response to my request to include some or all of the following: - intradepartmental emails about the monthly ALPR audits - reports about the findings of the monthly ALPR audits - documentation of the monthly ALPR audit procedure - both network and organizational reports from the appropriate time periods - scheduling records of meetings to discuss audit procedures or findings As outlined above, this response included only organizational reports, and even those did not cover the right time period. . . . Please understand that even if it is determined that I am entitled to unredacted officer names and license plate numbers as a matter of law, I do understand concerns about privacy and safety, and I am very sympathetic to that. To mitigate those concerns, I am willing to accept anonymization of the officer names and license plate search fields in all response log records in lieu of fully unredacted data. The Department’s Responses In its February 13, 2026 response, the Department cited Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law to redact the responsive records. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f). On February 17, 2026 and March 30, 2026, the Department provided responsive records in redacted form. 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).

Luke Stanton, Esq. SPR26/1303 Page 4 April 17, 2026 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. 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 response under Exemption (f), the Department asserted:

Luke Stanton, Esq. SPR26/1303 Page 5 April 17, 2026 The Department redacted certain portions and continues to assert Exemption (f), G. L. c. 4. § 7 (26)(f), as the basis for redacting certain portions of these records. . . . In the present case, the name of the officer, the plate, and the purpose of the inquiry have been redacted as they are investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of the public view by law enforcement, 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. In its February 17th response, the Department further asserted: This is the log the department keeps. When it came out under the name that had the officer’s name who logged on to look up– [sic] The issue is a number of these officers are in the drug unit etc., where their confidentiality must be maintained because it is ongoing investigations and/or may put them in harm’s way. The actual plate column and reason column are also kept confidential under the Investigatory exception to the public records review. Based on the Department’s responses, although the Department claims there are ongoing investigations, the Department did not demonstrate how disclosure of the redacted information could alert suspects to the activities of investigative officials. Further, the Department did not demonstrate how the redacted information constitutes confidential investigative techniques or how disclosure of the redacted portions of the responsive records “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. Additional Records Based on the Department’s responses and in conjunction with the information provided in Mr. Wheelhouse’s appeal, it is unclear if the Department possesses additional records responsive to the 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 Department must clarify whether additional records exist. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Wheelhouse 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

Luke Stanton, Esq. SPR26/1303 Page 6 April 17, 2026 office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Mr. Wheelhouse 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: Jeffery Wheelhouse