MA Public Records Search
← Back to Search

Marie Laskowsky v. Hopkinton, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20252867)

Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Public records appeal decision · Filed 09-30-2025

ClosedAppealDecision

SPR 20252867 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Marie Laskowsky concerning records held by Hopkinton, Town of - Police Department, opened 09-30-2025. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Public records appeal decision.

Case Details

Case Number
20252867
Case Type
Appeal
Case Subtype
Initial
Status
Closed
Requester
Marie Laskowsky
Custodian
Hopkinton, Town of - Police Department
Date Opened
09-30-2025
Date Closed
10-10-2025

PDF Document

Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 10, 2025 SPR25/2867 Susan Schuler Administrative Manager Hopkinton Police Department 74 Main Street Hopkinton, MA 01748 Dear Ms. Schuler: I have received the petition of Marie Laskowsky appealing the response of the Hopkinton 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 12, 2025, Ms. Laskowsky requested, “[a]ll incident report, arrest records, investigation files, and related correspondence involving [an identified individual] and/or Hillers Pizza[,] 77 west main st, Hopkinton, MA from 1990 to present.” The Department responded on August 21 and September 11, 2025. Unsatisfied with the responses, Ms. Laskowsky petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2867, 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). 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. 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

Susan Schuler SPR25/2867 Page 2 October 10, 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. The Department’s August 21st and September 11th Responses In its August 21, 2025 response, the Department produced two responsive records. In its September 11, 2025 response, the Department produced responsive records and stated, “… certain records have been withheld and others have been redacted. The Department has done so under two Public Records Law exemptions, Exemption A (statutory exemption) and Exemption C (privacy exemption).” Current Appeal In her September 30, 2025 petition to this office, Ms. Laskowsky contended that the Department’s redactions were overbroad. This office has reviewed the trial court’s docket and confirmed that the requested records are the subject of active and ongoing litigation in the Framingham District Court. See Commonwealth v. Petros Sismanis (Docket No. 2349CR000073). Please note that the defendant in the active litigation has filed a notice of appeal. Active Litigation 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. In light of the active litigation, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). I further decline to opine on the applicability of Exemptions (a) and (c) of the Public Records Law to the requested records. It should be noted that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b).

Susan Schuler SPR25/2867 Page 3 October 10, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Sara Hincapie