Matteo Livorno v. Winthrop, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20253114)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 6, 2025 SPR25/3114 Michelle Hall Records Access Officer Town of Winthrop 3 Metcalf Square Winthrop, MA 02152 Dear Ms. Hall: I have received the petition of Matteo Livorno appealing the response of the Town of Winthrop (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66 § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On October 22, 2025, Mr. Livorno requested, “the daily arrest log of the Winthrop Police Department for adult arrests on October 18, 2025 and October 19, 2025. This means from 12:01am on October 18 until 11:59 pm on October 19. Please include, at minimum, each arrestee’s name, address, and charges.” The Town responded on October 22 and October 24, 2025. Unsatisfied with the responses, Mr. Livorno petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3114, was opened as a result. Subsequently, the Town provided an additional response on October 27, 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. See 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. 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

John Pyers SPR25/3114 Page 2 November 6, 2025 If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. See 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 Town’s October 22nd and October 24th Responses In its October 22, 2025 response, the Town acknowledged receipt of Mr. Livorno’s records request. In its October 24, 2025 response, the Town stated, “[y]our records request is denied. The records you requested are exempt from disclosure.” Current Appeal In his October 24, 2025 appeal to this office, Mr. Livorno stated, “[t]he Deputy Chief of Police denied my request on October 24, 2025 [on] the alleged grounds that ‘the records you requested are exempt from disclosure.’ My request sought the daily arrest log of adult arrests…precisely the type of information that the Massachusetts Public Records Law makes publicly available.” In an October 27, 2025 communication to this office the Town cited Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law to withhold an arrest record. 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

John Pyers SPR25/3114 Page 3 November 6, 2025 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 Town cited G. L. c. 41, § 97D to withhold the responsive record in its entirety. G. L. c. 41, § 97D 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… G. L. c. 41, § 97D. The Town clarified that “the only arrest record pertinent to the time frame requested” concerned a report of rape. As the record 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 Town has met its burden in responding to this request under the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 41, § 97D (providing that these reports and communications “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 now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Livorno 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. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c) (pursuing an administrative appeal does not limit the availability of applicable judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Matteo Livorno First Deputy Chief Ferruccio A. Romeo, Esq.