Laini Snow v. Franklin, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20250684)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 20, 2025 SPR25/0684 Kristin Gutauskas Donovan Keeper of Records Franklin Police Department 911 Panther Way Franklin, MA 02038 Dear Ms. Gutauskas Donovan: I have received the petition of Laini Snow appealing the response of the Franklin 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 6, 2025, Ms. Snow requested “… criminal records associated with [an identified individual].” The Department provided a response on March 7, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. Snow petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0684, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the Department provided a further response on March 20, 2025. 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. 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

Kristin Gutauskas Donovan SPR25/0684 Page 2 March 20, 2025 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 7th Response In its March 7, 2025 response, the Department informed Ms. Snow that the only responsive record in its custody was the identified individual’s driver history. The Department stated that the record was exempt from disclosure under the Driver Privacy Protection Act. Current Appeal In her March 12, 2025 petition to this office, Ms. Snow expressed doubt that the responsive record was exempt from disclosure. In its March 20, 2025 response to Ms. Snow, the Department clarified that it was also withholding the responsive record under the Work and Family Mobility Act. 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 Att’y Gen. v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 54 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-46 (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.

Kristin Gutauskas Donovan SPR25/0684 Page 3 March 20, 2025 In its March 20th response, the Department cited the Work and Family Mobility Act, which provides in pertinent part: Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, any information provided by or relating to the holder of a Massachusetts license issued under said section 8 of said chapter 90 or the holder of a learner’s permit issued under said section 8B of said chapter 90, including failure to provide proof of lawful presence as defined in said section 1 of said chapter 90, including, but not limited to, personally identifying information and communications between the holder and the registrar of motor vehicles pursuant to said sections 8 or 8B of said chapter 90, shall neither be a public record nor be disclosed by the registrar, except as required by federal law or as authorized by regulations promulgated by the attorney general; provided, however, that information maintained by the motor vehicle insurance merit rating board pursuant to said section 57A of said chapter 6C may be disseminated for motor vehicle insurance purposes; and provided further, that any information disseminated for motor vehicle insurance purposes shall remain confidential and be used solely for the purpose of motor vehicle insurance. Work and Family Mobility Act of 2022, c. 81, § 7(a)-(b). Regulations promulgated by the Attorney General further clarify which documents related to Massachusetts Driver’s Licenses are public records. The pertinent regulations state the following: Nothing in these regulations shall be interpreted to authorize the designation as a public record of any information provided by or relating to (1) the applicant for a Massachusetts license, (2) the applicant for a learner’s permit, (3) the holder of a Massachusetts license, or (4) the holder of a learner’s permit. 940 C.M.R. 37.04(6). Where the responsive record constitutes “… information provided by or relating to the holder of a Massachusetts license issued under said section 8 of said chapter 90 …” and where the above Act indicates that such information “… shall neither be a public record … [,]” I find that the Department may permissibly withhold the responsive record from disclosure under 940 C.M.R. 37.04(6) and Chapter 81 of the Acts of 2022, as they operate through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. Consequently, I decline to opine on the applicability of the Driver Privacy Protection Act to the responsive record.

Kristin Gutauskas Donovan SPR25/0684 Page 4 March 20, 2025 Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Ms. Snow is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Laini Snow