Timothy Paikopoulos v. Norton, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20252552)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 11, 2025 SPR25/2552 Michelle L. Goodwin Records Administrator Norton Police Department 82 East Main Street Norton, MA 02766 Dear Ms. Goodwin: I have received the petition of Timothy Paikopoulos, Esq., of South Coastal Counties Legal Services, Inc., appealing the response of the Norton 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 July 14, 2025, Attorney Paikopoulos requested: [1] Any/all records, including police logs, pertaining to [two identified individuals] dating back to December 1, 2024[;] [2] Any/all records, including police logs, pertaining to [a specific address] dating back to December 1, 2024. Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR25/2215 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 11, 2025). In my August 11th determination, I found that the Department had not met its burden to withhold responsive records in their entirety pursuant to Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. The Department responded on August 26, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Attorney Paikopoulos petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2552, 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 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

Michelle L. Goodwin SPR25/2552 Page 2 September 11, 2025 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. 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 26th Response In its August 26, 2025 response, the Department stated that it had redacted certain responsive records pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. The Department withheld additional responsive records pursuant to G. L. c. 41, § 97D as it operates through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. Current Appeal In his August 27, 2025 petition to this office, Attorney Paikopoulos objected to the withholding of responsive records under Exemption (a). Attorney Paikopoulos did not object to the Department’s redactions under Exemption (c). 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).

Michelle L. Goodwin SPR25/2552 Page 3 September 11, 2025 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. In its August 26, 2025 response, the Department relied upon G. L. c. 41, § 97D, which 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; provided, however, that all such reports shall be accessible at all reasonable times, upon written request, to: (i) the victim, the victim’s attorney, others specifically authorized by the victim to obtain such information, prosecutors and (ii) victim-witness advocates ... G. L. c. 41, § 97D. In its response, the Department stated: Any police reports or portions of that might contain information explicitly protected by G.L. c. 41, §97D, cannot be disclosed. Additional records including incident reports and call logs in the care and custody of the Norton Police Department involving [two identified individuals] from December 1, 2024 to current that have been withheld are not a public record pursuant to G.L. c.41, §97D, are prohibited from disclosure and must be maintained confidentially. Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear how the responsive records fall within the type of records contemplated in G. L. c. 41, § 97D. The Department merely cites the statute without any further explanation as to the statute’s applicability to the responsive records. A records custodian is required to not only cite an exemption but to specifically explain the applicability of the exemption to the requested records for compliance with the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv). The Department must clarify this matter.

Michelle L. Goodwin SPR25/2552 Page 4 September 11, 2025 Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Attorney Paikopoulos with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten 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. Attorney Paikopoulos may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Timothy Paikopoulos, Esq.