DiBenedetto, Melissa v. Charlton, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20261372)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 24, 2026 SPR26/1372 Chief Daniel Dowd Charlton Police Department 85 Masonic Home Road Charlton, MA 01507 Dear Chief Dowd: I have received the petition of Melissa DiBenedetto, Esq., of Heinlein, Beeler, Mingace & Heineman, P.C., appealing the response of the Charlton 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 April 8, 2026, Attorney DiBenedetto requested, “copies of the following regarding the motor vehicle collision which occurred on March 31, 2026, on Route 20 in Charlton involving [an identified individual]:” [1] Dispatch logs[;] [2] Radio transmissions[;] [3] Dash camera footage[;] [4] Body worn camera footage[;] [5] All GPS printouts from any Charlton Police vehicle involved in any manner[;] [6] All reports generated by the Charlton Police Department[;] [7] All photographs and/or videos[.] The Department responded on April 8, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Attorney DiBenedetto petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/1372, 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

Chief Daniel Dowd SPR26/1372 Page 2 April 24, 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. The Department’s April 8th Response In its April 8, 2026 response, the Department stated that the “incident in question is being investigated by the Massachusetts State Police Detective Unit-Worcester and the Worcester District Attorney’s Office” and further noted, “they would be the holder of the records that [Attorney DiBenedetto] [is] requesting.” The Department further advised, “[i]t is understood that the investigation into the matter is currently open and ongoing as of the writing of this message, which would preclude the release of the records in the possession of the Charlton Police Department under exemption (f) of the Massachusetts Public Records Law. . . .” Current Appeal In her April 13, 2026 appeal petition, Attorney DiBenedetto objects to the Department’s claims under Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law and “respectfully [suggests] that the blanket denial . . . is improper.” She contends, “[s]imply because the Charlton Police Department is investigating the motor vehicle collision that took [an identified individual’s] life does not automatically mean that information possessed by the department is exempt from disclosure.” Upon review, it is my understanding that Attorney DiBenedetto does not object to the portion of the Department’s response in which it states that “the Massachusetts State Police Detective Unit- Worcester and the Worcester District Attorney's Office . . . would be the holder of the records that [she] [is] requesting.” 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).

Chief Daniel Dowd SPR26/1372 Page 3 April 24, 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 289-290. 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. Upon review of the Department’s response, although the Department claims that there is an open investigation related to the responsive records, it is unclear how the records, in their entirety, can be withheld under Exemption (f). It is unclear from the Department’s response

Chief Daniel Dowd SPR26/1372 Page 4 April 24, 2026 whether the records contain confidential investigative techniques that would be prejudicial to the ongoing investigation if disclosed. Further, the Department did not provide any supporting information to demonstrate how disclosure of any segregable portion 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). 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). The Department must clarify these matters. Additionally, it is unclear what type of records the Department possesses that it withheld from disclosure. 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 . . .”). Therefore, the Department must identify the records it has in its possession that it is withholding under Exemption (f). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Attorney DiBenedetto with a response to her 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. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Melissa DiBenedetto, Esq.