Lucille Flynn v. Medford, City of - Police Department (SPR 20252615)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 17, 2025 SPR25/2615 Officer Darrin Connolly Records Division Medford Police Department 100 Main Street Medford, MA 02155 Dear Officer Connolly: I have received the petition of Lucille Flynn appealing the response of the Medford 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 August 21, 2025, Ms. Flynn requested an incident report for a location on “Fulton St Medford MA” for “2014 or 2015.” The Department responded on August 28, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. Flynn petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/2615, was opened as a result. Status of the Requestor In her appeal petition, Ms. Flynn states that she is a family member of an individual named in the requested incident report. Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Ms. Flynn’s status will play no role in a determination as to whether the records should be disclosed or redacted under the Public Records Law. It is unclear if Ms. Flynn may have a greater right of access to the responsive records outside the Public Records Law. The parties are encouraged to communicate to determine if there is another means affording Ms. Flynn a greater right of access to the responsive records. 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

Officer Darrin Connolly SPR25/2615 Page 2 September 17, 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. 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 28th Response In its August 28, 2025 response, the Department states that “based on the type of incident and the involvement of a child, your request for records is denied in accordance with Exemption A of MGL. Chapter 66 s. 10B.” 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.”

Officer Darrin Connolly SPR25/2615 Page 3 September 17, 2025 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 response, the Department cites G. L. c. 66, § 10B (records of firearms, home information of certain government officials and family members, information of victims of certain crimes, and certain other information not public records). Based on the information provided in the Department’s August 28th response, it is unclear how the withheld records constitute one of the types of records contemplated under G. L. c. 66, § 10B. Additionally, it is unclear from the Department’s response which specific records the Department intends to withhold. Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be on the custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption to withhold or redact records. The Department must identify the records, categories of records, or portions of records it intends to withhold under Exemption (a) and G. L. c. 66, § 10B, and explain with specificity how the exemption applies. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based”). See also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police ------------------------- Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511; Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Flynn 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. Flynn may further appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Lucille Flynn