Amber Canyon v. Sharon, Town of- Police Department (SPR 20253020)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 28, 2025 SPR25/3020 Jennifer Little Leavitt Sharon Police Department 213 South Main Street Sharon, MA 02067 Dear Ms. Leavitt: I have received the petition of Amber Canyon appealing the response of the Sharon 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 9, 2025, Ms. Canyon requested, “the following records . . . in relation to [an identified] Sharon PD Case. . . :” [1] Digital, color image of a booking photo for the arrest of [an identified individual] on 5/30/12[;] [2] Digital, color image of photographs taken of [an identified individual], related to the 5/30/12 arrest of [an identified individual], notated in the case file. . .[;] [3] A copy of evidence in the case file notated . . . in relation to the 5/30/12 arrest of [an identified individual]. The Department responded on October 10, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. Canyon petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3020, 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). 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

Jennifer Little Leavitt SPR25/3020 Page 2 October 28, 2025 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 October 10th response In its October 10, 2025 response, the Department advised, “[w]e are unable to provide this information to you pursuant to Massachusetts Public Records Law” and cited G. L. c. 41, § 97D and G. L. c. 66, § 10B, operating under Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law, to deny Ms. Canyon’s request in its entirety. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). Current Appeal In her October 15, 2025 appeal petition, Ms. Canyon contests the Department’s claims under Exemption (a) for denying her request. She states, “[w]hile I respect the importance of protecting identifiable victim information, I believe that my request can be tailored and disclosed in a redacted form consistent with privacy safeguards.” 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, 54 (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.”

Jennifer Little Leavitt SPR25/3020 Page 3 October 28, 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 October 10, 2025 response, under Exemption (a), the Department cites G. L. c. 41, § 97D and G. L. c. 66, § 10B (discussing the confidentiality of records identifying victims of domestic violence and/or victims of adjudicated crimes as falling within such categories) to withhold the responsive records in their entirety. The statutes provide 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; provided, however, that all such reports shall be accessible at all reasonable times, upon written request, to: (i) the victim, the victim’s attorney, others specifically authorized by the victim to obtain such information, prosecutors and (ii) victim-witness advocates as defined in section 1 of chapter 258B, domestic violence victims’ counselors as defined in section 20K of chapter 233, sexual assault counselors as defined in section 20J of chapter 233, if such access is necessary in the performance of their duties; and provided further, that all such reports shall be accessible at all reasonable times, upon written, telephonic, facsimile or electronic mail request to law enforcement officers, district attorneys or assistant district attorneys and all persons authorized to admit persons to bail pursuant to section 57 of chapter 276. G. L. c. 41, § 97D. The home address, telephone number, personal email address or place of employment or education of victims of adjudicated crimes, of victims of domestic violence and of persons providing or training in family planning services and the name, home address, telephone number, personal email address or place of employment or education of a family member of any of the foregoing shall not be public records in the custody of a government agency which maintains records identifying such persons as falling within such categories and shall not be disclosed. G. L. c. 66, § 10B. Burden of Specificity Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be on the custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption to withhold or redact records. In this case, the Department’s

Jennifer Little Leavitt SPR25/3020 Page 4 October 28, 2025 October 10th response did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. Here, the Department merely cites G. L. c. 41, § 97D and G. L. c. 66, § 10B, operating under Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law, without any explanation of their applicability to the responsive records. 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, and explain with specificity how any exemptions apply to withhold the records. 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”). See also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511. Accordingly, the Department must identify the records in its possession that it is withholding under Exemption (a). It is also uncertain why the records must be withheld in their entirety. See Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). The Department must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Canyon with a response to her request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Amber Canyon