Leia Buffaloe v. Arlington, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20251880)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 15, 2025 SPR25/1880 Suzanne Trunfio Social Media Coordinator/Senior Records Clerk Arlington Police Department 112 Mystic Street Arlington, MA 02474 Dear Ms. Trunfio: I have received the petition of Leia Buffaloe appealing the response of the Arlington 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 June 20, 2025, Ms. Buffaloe requested, “access to any records pertaining to [an identified individual] specifically related to”: [1] Any report or documentation classifying her as a runaway or missing person in or around 1991, [2] Any confirmation of her return or case closure, [3] And any school enrollment or attendance records that may confirm the last year she attended school in Arlington[.] The Department responded on June 23, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Buffaloe petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1880, 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). 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 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

Suzanne Trunfio SPR25/1880 Page 2 July 15, 2025 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 June 23rd Response In its June 23, 2025 response, the Department cited Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested records in their entirety. Current appeal In her appeal, Ms. Buffaloe asserts, “[t]he disappearance occurred over three decades ago, and ... has not been publicly accounted for since. The records requested pertain to police investigative materials and do not involve sealed court or juvenile legal records. These should be subject to review and possible redaction rather than full denial. Given the unresolved nature of this disappearance and the passage of time without public resolution, there is significant public interest in disclosure of these records.” 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, 154 (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

Suzanne Trunfio SPR25/1880 Page 3 July 15, 2025 individuals or entities to whom the records are to be provided; the statute must expressly limit access to the listed individuals or entities. In its response, the Department cites G. L. c. 119, § 60A, which states in pertinent part as follows: The records of a youthful offender proceeding conducted pursuant to an indictment shall be open to public inspection in the same manner and to the same extent as adult criminal court records. All other records of the court in cases of delinquency arising under sections fifty-two to fifty-nine, inclusive, shall be withheld from public inspection except with the consent of a justice of such court; provided, however, that such records shall be open, at all reasonable times, to inspection by the child proceeded against, his parents, guardian or attorney; provided further, that nothing herein shall be construed to provide access to privileged or confidential communications and information; and provided further, that said protections shall be construed to include information and communications entered at the indictment. G. L. c. 119, § 60A. In its response, the Department states, “[p]lease be advised that the department intends to withhold all reports, records, and documents pertaining to a juvenile individual for the following reason... Exemption (a): This exemption applies to records that are ‘specifically or by necessary implication exempt from disclosure by statute’.” Based on the Department’s June 23rd response, it is unclear how the responsive records are the type contemplated under G. L. c. 119, § 60A. Specifically, it is unclear how the withheld records constitute “records of the court in cases of delinquency arising under sections fifty-two to fifty-nine,” as required by the statute. The Department must clarify this. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Buffaloe 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. Ms. Buffaloe may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Suzanne Trunfio SPR25/1880 Page 4 July 15, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Leia Buffaloe