Melissa J. Emerick v. Haverhill, City of - Police Department (SPR 20252736)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 30, 2025 SPR25/2736 Christine Rodgers Haverhill Police Department 40 Bailey Boulevard Haverhill, MA 01830 Dear Ms. Rodgers: I have received the petition of Melissa Emerick appealing the response of the Haverhill 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 26, 2025, and again on September 13, 2025, Ms. Emerick requested “any police reports that involve [two named individuals]. The reports would be at . . . Laurel Ave . . . Haverhill, MA.” The Department responded on August 26, 2025, and assigned reference number 2025- 5096 to this request. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. Emerick petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/2736, was opened as a result. Status of the Requestor In her appeal petition, Ms. Emerick states that she is “the parent and legal guardian of the children directly involved in these incidents.” 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. Emerick’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. Emerick 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. Emerick 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

Christine Rodgers SPR25/2736 Page 2 September 30, 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 26th Response In its August 26, 2025 response, the Department cites numerous statutes, as they operate through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law, for withholding responsive records. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). 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.”

Christine Rodgers SPR25/2736 Page 3 September 30, 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 August 26th response, the Department argues the following: In response to your request dated August 26, 2025 in which you are seeking reports regarding . . ., the Haverhill Police Department must deny your request pursuant to Exemption A of the Public Records Law. In that the reports requested involve domestic violence matters, release of same is exempt. Exemption A of the Public Records Law covers those records which are “specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute, which may be withheld from disclosure.” The following statutorily exempt and prohibited records that can be withheld from public inspection are, including but not limited to, victim and victim family information (c. 66, s. 10B); sex victim and rape report information (c. 265, s. 24c); domestic violence reports (c. 209A, s. 1); harassment order information (c. 258E, s. 10); immediate treat reports (c. 90, s. 221); firearm information (c. 66, s. 10); child requiring assistance (CHINS) (c. 119); juvenile delinquency reports (c. 119, s. 60a); sex offender information (c. 6, s. 1781); search warrant and affidavits; registry of motor vehicle information; and criminal offender record information (CORI) (c. 6, s. 167). In this case, the Department’s August 26th response did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be on the custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption to withhold or redact records. Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear which of the statutes cited by the Department would apply to withhold the responsive records from disclosure. The Department must clarify this. Additionally, it is unclear from the Department’s response, which specific records the Department intends to withhold. The Department must identify the records, categories of records, or portions of records it intends to withhold under Exemption (a) and the statutes cited in its response. 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”). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Emerick 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

Christine Rodgers SPR25/2736 Page 4 September 30, 2025 office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Ms. Emerick 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: Melissa Emerick