Nicole Foley v. Sandwich, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20252972)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 23, 2025 SPR25/2972 Joshua H. Bound Deputy Chief of Police Sandwich Police Department 255 Cotuit Road Sandwich, MA 02563 Dear Deputy Chief Bound: I have received the petition of Nicole Foley appealing the response of the Sandwich 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 October 2, 2025, Ms. Foley requested a report concerning an identified “Break In - B&E Misdemeanor[.]” The Department responded on October 7, 2025, denying the request. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. Foley petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/2972, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the Department provided additional information to this office in an email dated October 23, 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. 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 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

Joshua H. Bound SPR25/2972 Page 2 October 23, 2025 custodian must provide the responsive records. Current Appeal In her October 9, 2025 appeal petition, Ms. Foley contests the Department’s denial of her request and states, “in this case the investigation has led to formal criminal charges that are now a matter of public record.” Purpose of Request; Status of the Requestor 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. Foley’s purpose in making the request has no bearing on the public status of any existing responsive records. Additionally, based on information provided in her appeal, it is unclear if Ms. Foley 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. Foley a greater right of access to the responsive records The Department’s October 7th Response In its October 7, 2025 response, the Department cited Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law to deny the request in its entirety, and further advised that the responsive report is, “the subject of a dispute in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation.” Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, in a telephone conversation between this office and a Department representative on October 23, 2025, the Department confirmed that the responsive report is directly related to pending litigation. The Department provided additional information regarding the pending litigation in an email to this office on the same date. Pending 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.

Joshua H. Bound SPR25/2972 Page 3 October 23, 2025 This office has reviewed the trial court’s docket and verified that criminal litigation, relating to the report that is the subject of Ms. Foley’s request, is active and ongoing in Barnstable District Court. See Commonwealth vs. Coleman, David (Barnstable District Court Docket No. 2525CR001704); Commonwealth vs. Coleman, David (Barnstable District Court Docket No. 2525CR001705). In light of the pending matters, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Please note that a change in the status of the above litigation could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Nicole Foley