William H. White v. Holbrook, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20220451)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records March 8, 2022 SPR22/0451 Debora A. Hoyte Administrative Assistant Town of Holbrook Police Department 300 South Franklin Street Holbrook, MA 02343 Dear Ms. Hoyte: I have received the petition of William White, Esq., appealing the response of the Town of Holbrook Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On February 11, 2022, Attorney White requested a police report from February 11, 2022 relating to an identified address. On February 15, 2022, the Department responded. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Attorney White petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR22/0379, was opened as a result. Previous appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR22/0379 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 24, 2022). In my February 24th determination, I found that the Department intended on providing a response to Attorney White. On February 24, 2022, the Department provided a response. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Attorney White petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR22/0451, 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 town 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 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

Debora A. Hoyte SPR22/0451 Page 2 March 8, 2022 must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. The Department’s February 24th response In its February 24, 2022, response the Department stated that the requested records are being withheld pursuant to Exemption (a). Current Appeal In his current appeal Attorney White suggested that the requested records could not be withheld in their entirety pursuant to Exemption (a). Exemption (a) Exemption (a), known as the statutory exemption, permits the withholding of records that are: specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). A governmental entity may use the statutory exemption as a basis for withholding requested materials where the language of the exempting statute relied upon expressly or necessarily implies that the public's right to inspect records under the Public Records Law is restricted. See Attorney Gen. v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 154 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-546 (1977). This exemption creates two categories of exempt records. The first category includes records that are specifically exempt from disclosure by statute. Such statutes expressly state that such a record either "shall not be a public record," "shall be kept confidential" or "shall not be subject to the disclosure provision of the Public Records Law." The second category under the exemption includes records deemed exempt under statute by necessary implication. Such statutes expressly limit the dissemination of particular records to a defined group of individuals or entities. A statute is not a basis for exemption if it merely lists individuals or entities to whom the records are to be provided; the statute must expressly limit access to the listed individuals or entities. The statute states in its relevant part: All reports of rape and sexual assault or attempts to commit such offenses, all reports of abuse perpetrated by family or household members, as defined in section 1 of chapter 209A, and all communications between police officers and victims of such offenses or abuse shall not be public reports and shall be maintained by the police departments in a manner that shall assure their confidentiality…. G. L. c. 41, § 97D.

Debora A. Hoyte SPR22/0451 Page 3 March 8, 2022 In its February 24, 2022, response, the Department stated, “[t]he two reports I have on file for the department are categorized as Domestic Violence by two different Officer’s. It is in their opinion as well as myself, the Chief and Deputy Chief it is Domestic in nature…” The Department further stated, “… [t]he evidence of it being domestic is in the reports and sworn by Officer’s that categorize it as such, is in the Domestic Violence category.” As the records are restricted from disclosure in their entirety by the Legislature under G. L.c. 41, § 97D, as it operates through Exemption (a), I find the Department has met its burden in responding to this request under the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 41, § 97D (providing that these reports "shall not be public reports and shall be maintained by the police departments in a manner that shall assure their confidentiality"). Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: William White, Esq.