MA Public Records Search
← Back to Search

Jemel Williams v. Wilbraham, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20252930)

Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Administratively closed · Filed 10-06-2025

ClosedAppealResolved

SPR 20252930 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Jemel Williams concerning records held by Wilbraham, Town of - Police Department, opened 10-06-2025. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Administratively closed.

Case Details

Case Number
20252930
Case Type
Appeal
Case Subtype
Initial
Status
Closed
Requester
Jemel Williams
Custodian
Wilbraham, Town of - Police Department
Date Opened
10-06-2025
Date Closed
10-20-2025

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 20, 2025 SPR25/2930 Edward Lennon Chief of Police Wilbraham Police Department 2780 Boston Road Wilbraham, MA 01095 Dear Chief Lennon: I have received the petition of Jemel Williams appealing the response of the Wilbraham 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 19, 2025, Mr. Williams requested an identified police report relating to an August 17, 2025 incident. The Department responded on August 19, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Williams petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2930, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the Department provided additional information to this office on October 6, 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. 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

Chief Edward Lennon SPR25/2930 Page 2 October 20, 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 Responses In its August 19, 2025 response, the Department cited G. L. c. 41, § 97D, as it operates through Exemption (a) of the Pubic Records Law, to withhold the responsive report in its entirety. 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). 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 response, the Department referenced the statute 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….

Chief Edward Lennon SPR25/2930 Page 3 October 20, 2025 G. L. c. 41, § 97D. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, in an email to this office on October 6, 2025, the Department stated that Mr. Williams “is the defendant in an open criminal matter at the Palmer District Court – . . . MGL265/13M/B – Assault and Battery on a Family or Household Member.” The Department further stated that the responsive report is, “prohibited from release by the police under MGL Chapter 41 section 97D and as such [falls] under exemption [(a)] of the public records law.” Upon review, where the responsive report 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 “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 consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Williams 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. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jemel Williams