Jeremy Evans v. Arlington, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20252431)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 2, 2025 SPR25/2431 Suzanne Trunfio Records Access Officer Arlington Police Department 112 Mystic Street Arlington, MA 02474 Dear Ms. Trunfio: I have received the petition of Jeremy Evans 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 May 23, 2025, Mr. Evans requested the following for the period of February 20, 2024 to March 30, 2024, “[c]opies of all electronic or written communications made, sent or received on Arlington communication systems that mention [an identified individual].” Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/2169 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 31, 2025). In my July 31st determination, I found that the Department did not meet its burden to withhold responsive records under 803 C.M.R. 7.02, as it operates through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. The Department responded on August 1, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Evans petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2431, 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

Suzanne Trunfio SPR25/2431 Page 2 September 2, 2025 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 August 1st Response In its August 1, 2025 response, the Department cited Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law to withhold “Criminal Justice Information Services [(CJIS)] printouts” in their entirety. Current Appeal In his August 17, 2025 appeal to this office, Mr. Evans objected to the Department’s withholding of the responsive 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, 545-546 (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

Suzanne Trunfio SPR25/2431 Page 3 September 2, 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 cited 803 C.M.R. 7.02, which provides in pertinent part: (1) CJIS shall not be accessed or used for any purpose other than an authorized criminal justice purpose. (2) CJIS shall only be accessed or used and CJIS information shall only be disseminated for authorized criminal justice purposes as defined in 803 CMR 7.02. Such purposes may include but are not limited to the following where they otherwise meet the definition of authorized criminal justice purposes provided in 803 CMR 7.02: (a) criminal investigations, including motor vehicle and driver’s checks; (b) criminal justice employment; (c) arrests or custodial purposes; (d) civilian employment or licensing purposes as authorized by law and approved by the FBI; (e) determining the status of a court case for purposes of responding to a public records request; and (f) research conducted by a CJA. 803 C.M.R. 7.09. Under Exemption (a), the Department stated, “…the Department produced email communications pertaining to [an identified individual]. However, certain records were withheld, specifically: CJIS printouts, which included: [w]arrant checks[;] NCIC checks[;] Massachusetts criminal history[;][and] RMV Massachusetts driver’s license inquiry…The CJIS records are exempt under 803 CMR 7.00, which governs the access, use, and dissemination of CJIS information. According to 803 CMR 7.02, CJIS data may only be accessed and used for authorized criminal justice purposes…Disclosure of CJIS materials in response to a public records request—particularly those with no authorized criminal justice purpose—would violate these restrictions.” In light of the information provided in the Department’s August 1st response, and where the responsive records constitute CJIS information which is not being sought for an authorized criminal justice purpose, I find the Department has met its burden to withhold the “email attachments” under the cited regulation as it operates through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Evans is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares

Suzanne Trunfio SPR25/2431 Page 4 September 2, 2025 jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jeremy Evans