Eric Neal v. Middleton, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20252029)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 28, 2025 SPR25/2029 Captain Matthew Armitage Middleton Police Department 65 North Main Street Middleton, MA 01949 Dear Captain Armitage: I have received the petition of Eric Neal appealing the response of the Middleton 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 29, 2025, Mr. Neal requested, [1] [A]ny officer arrest/incident reports concerning any arrests or charges against [an identified individual] [2] [A]ny incident reports concerning his arrest from Jan 1, 2000 to present [3] [I]ncident report concerning any arrests in Jan 2025. On June 30, 2025, Mr. Neal modified his request to include, “…any awards/special recognitions/promotions.” The Department responded on July 14, 2025. Unsatisfied by the response, Mr. Neal petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2029, 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 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

Captain Matthew Armitage SPR25/2029 Page 2 July 28, 2025 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 July 14th Response In its July 14, 2025 response, the Department cited Exemptions (a) and (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested records in their entirety. Current Appeal In his appeal to this office, Mr. Neal stated, “[the Department’s] response is improper. These exemptions do not justify withholding…” Exemption (a) – Incident Reports 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, 545-546 (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.

Captain Matthew Armitage SPR25/2029 Page 3 July 28, 2025 In its response, the Department stated, “[the Department is] unable to release the reports…under [E]xemption A, as they are records that are prohibited by statute from being release[d] either due to being domestic in nature (see MGL c. 41, § 97D), or containing CORI information (see MGL c. 6, § 167-178B). G. L. c. 41, § 97D provides in pertinent 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. In a July 17, 2025 telephone call to this office, the Department clarified that the requested records concerned a report of abuse perpetrated by family or household members. 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 the request for reports under the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 41, § 97D (providing that these reports and communications “shall not be public reports and shall be maintained by the police departments in a manner that shall assure their confidentiality”). Exemption (c) – Awards and Commendations 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 While statutorily exempting personnel information from the expansive definition of public records, the Legislature did not explicitly define “personnel [file] or information.” G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Judicial decisions advise that the term is neither rigid, nor exact, and that the determination is case-specific. Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corp. v. Chief of Police of Worcester, 58 Mass App Ct 1, 5 (2003). The custodian’s classification of materials as “personnel information” is not conclusive. Wakefield Teacher’s Ass’n v. Sch. Comm. of Wakefield, 431 Mass. 792, 798 (2000). Instead, the nature or character of the documents, as opposed to the

Captain Matthew Armitage SPR25/2029 Page 4 July 28, 2025 documents’ label, is crucial to the analysis. See Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corp., 436 Mass. at 386. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (Court) has refined the analysis to be employed when considering the public record status of personnel records. The Court has held that personnel information that is “useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee” may be withheld pursuant to the first clause of exemption (c). Wakefield Teacher’s Ass’n, 431 Mass. at 798, quoting Oregonian Publ. Co.v. Portland Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 329 Or. 401 (1999). The Court further defined those records that may be withheld as personnel information to include, “employment applications, employee work evaluations, disciplinary documentation, and promotion, demotion, or termination information pertaining to a particular employee.” Wakefield Teacher’s Ass’n, 431 Mass. at 798. In its July 14th response, under Exemption (c), the Department stated, “[i]n terms of awards/recognitions/promotions, [an identified individual], while our K9 officer was awarded several trophies in a K9 handling competition in 2015, and he was promoted to Sergeant in September of 2019. Any other commendation letters would be part of his personnel file and not releasable under the first clause of exemption C…” Where the requested records are awards, special recognitions, and/or promotions, I find that the records fall within the core categories of personnel information described in Wakefield as useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee, and are exempt under Exemption (c). See id. In Colman M. Herman v. City of Boston, et. al., Suffolk Superior Court, Civil Action No. 2384CV2395, the Court in its June 20, 2024 Decision and Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Public Records Responses, found that “personnel files . . . shall be considered exempt under exemption (c) . . .” Id. at 6. Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Neal 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 an administrative appeal does not limit the availability of applicable judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Eric Neal