Chritson, David v. Somerville, City of (SPR 20261368)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 28, 2026 SPR26/1368 Cynthia Amara, Esq. City Hall, Law Department City of Somerville 93 Highland Avenue Somerville, MA 02143 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 February 7, 2026, Mr. Chritson requested: [D]istinct records of the Somerville Police Department (“SPD”) -- including records in physical format (including papers, meeting notes, memos, etc.) and electronic format -- beginning on March 1, 2023 and continuing in a forward chronological order without skipping any records until the 2 hours of search and/or redaction are exhausted, after which you must stop the search or process to avoid fees. I am requesting only SPD internal records made or received by SPD’s [identified individual] and associated with . . . Responsive records must include [an identified individual’s] cell phone records, SMS, text messages, and app messages. Please search for physical and electronic records containing keywords or subject lines such as: [a list of four names.] Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR26/0604 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 9, 2026). In my March 9th determination, I found that where the City intended to provide records within the statutory timeframe, the basis of Mr. Chritson’s appeal was unclear. Subsequently, the City responded on March 24, 2026. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Chritson petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/1368, was opened as a result. 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. SPR26/1368 Page 2 April 28, 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). 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. The City’s March 24th Response In its March 24, 2026 response, the City provides numerous responsive records in redacted form, and cites Exemptions (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law, along with the attorney-client privilege, for redacting the responsive records. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c), (f). Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Chritson states the following: This petition appeals the March 25, 2026 response by the City of Somerville (see email chain below). On March 25, 2026, the City provided an attachment dated May 28, 2025, a copy of which is attached to this petition. In that attachment, the City improperly redacted responsive records under Exemptions (c) and (f). I respectfully request an in-camera inspection of the redacted records listed in the May 28, 2025 attachment provided in the City’s March 25, 2026 response. Upon review of the appeal petition, I understand Mr. Chritson objects only to the redactions made under Exemptions (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law, and not to the redactions under the attorney-client privilege.

Cynthia Amara, Esq. SPR26/1368 Page 3 April 28, 2026 Exemption (c) Exemption (c) permits the withholding of: 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). First Clause – Medical Medical information that is of a personal nature and relates to a specifically named individual may be exempt from disclosure. Brogan v. Sch. Comm. of Westport, 401 Mass. 306, 308 (1987); Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Ret. Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 438 (1983). Generally, medical information is sufficiently personal to warrant exemption. Globe Newspaper Co., 338 Mass. at 432-34. There is a strong public policy in Massachusetts that favors confidentiality as to medical data about a person’s body. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Chief Med. Exam’r, 404 Mass. 132, 135 (1987). 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

Cynthia Amara, Esq. SPR26/1368 Page 4 April 28, 2026 in a law-abiding and efficient manner. Id. at 292. In its March 24th response, the City argues the following: Personal identifying information has been redacted pursuant to exemption (c), the privacy exemption. The disclosure of such information may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and the public interest in disclosure of the information does not outweigh the privacy interest associated with disclosure of the information. Based on the City’s response, it is unclear how the redacted information constitutes intimate details of a highly personal nature nor how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. It is additionally uncertain whether any of the redacted information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. Also, the City did not provide additional 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. The City must clarify these matters. 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- 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. As a matter of course, 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. Bougas, 371 Mass at 62. Any information contained in a witness statement, which

Cynthia Amara, Esq. SPR26/1368 Page 5 April 28, 2026 if disclosed would create a grave risk of directly or indirectly identifying the voluntary witness is subject to withholding. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Ret. Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 438 (1983). 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 24th response, the City argues the following: Exemption (f) permits redaction of the names and identifying details of voluntary complainants and witnesses. Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59 (1976). Further, exemption (f) allows redactions 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. Based on the City’s response, I find that to the extent that the City has redacted the names and identifying information of voluntary witnesses, and claims that the redacted information would compromise effective law enforcement by discouraging the cooperation of individuals who require assurances of confidentiality so that they will cooperate with investigations (the “chilling effect”), the City has met its burden to redact such portions of the records under Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f).

Cynthia Amara, Esq. SPR26/1368 Page 6 April 28, 2026 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 further appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: David Chritson