Donald P. Spaulding Jr. v. Oxford, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20252712)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 25, 2025 SPR25/2712 Lysa Dell’Aqulia Records Access Officer Oxford Police Department 503 Main Street Oxford, MA 01540 Dear Ms. Dell’Aqulia: I have received the petition of Donald P. Spaulding Jr. appealing the response of the Oxford 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 September 9, 2025, Mr. Spaulding requested, “all reports and the 911 recording regarding [an] incident at [an identified address] on 11/23/2023.” The Department responded on September 10, 2025. Unsatisfied by the response, Mr. Spaulding petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2712, was opened as a result. Subsequently, the Department provided an additional response on September 16, 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. 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

Lysa Dell’Aqulia SPR25/2712 Page 2 September 25, 2025 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. Status of the Requestor Please note that under the Public Records Law 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, Mr. Spaulding’s status will play no role in a determination as to whether the records should be disclosed or withheld under the Public Records Law. The Department’s September 10th Response In its September 10, 2025 response, the Department provided redacted records and stated, “[w]e are denying your request for the audio 911 recordings as this falls under the public records exemption to release due to the calls being domestic in nature and shall not be subject to the disclosure provision of the Public Records Law.” In a September 16, 2025 correspondence to this office, the Department cited Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law to withhold additional records and redact the provided record. Current Appeal In his appeal to this office, Mr. Spaulding solely objected to the Department’s withholding of the 911 recording. 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).

Lysa Dell’Aqulia SPR25/2712 Page 3 September 25, 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 September 16, 2025 response, the Department cited G. L. c. 41, § 97D to withhold responsive records in their entirety. 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. The Department clarified that the requested record concerned a report of abuse perpetrated by a family or household member, as defined in section 1 of chapter 209A. As the record is restricted from disclosure in its 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 this request 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”). Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Spaulding 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).

Lysa Dell’Aqulia SPR25/2712 Page 4 September 25, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Donald P. Spaulding Jr.