Joshua Dankoff v. Franklin County Sheriff's Department (SPR 20253240)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 19, 2025 SPR25/3240 Captain Jason Yuryan Records Department Franklin County Sheriff’s Office 160 Elm Street Greenfield, MA 01301 Dear Captain Yuryan: I have received the petition of Joshua Dankoff, of Citizens for Juvenile Justice, appealing the response of the Franklin County Sheriff’s Office (Office) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 18, 2025, Mr. Dankoff requested the following: [1] All records related to the Sheriff Office’s policies regarding communication and information sharing between office employees and federal agents/agencies, including, but not limited to, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the U.S. Immigration and customs Enforcement (ICE). This request covers any policies that are currently in effect or that have been in effect at any point on or after January 20, 2025[;] [2] The three most recent communications . . . between an office employee and a federal DHS or ICE employee. In addition, I request all records related to these communications . . . [;] [3] All communications between office employees and DHS or ICE surrounding any incident, if any, from January 20, 2025, to the day this request is responded to, in which an individual involved in HOC custody was taken into ICE custody. For each incident, the records request includes, but is not limited to, emails, phone call records . . . text messages . . . and any internal notes, memos, or documentation referencing communication with DHS or ICE. The Office responded on September 2, 2025 and September 12, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Office’s responses, Mr. Dankoff petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3240, was opened as a result. 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

Captain Jason Yuryan SPR25/3240 Page 2 November 19, 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. 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 Office’s September 17th Response In its September 2, 2025 response, the Office sought “a 10 day extension to [Mr. Dankoff’s] records request.” In an email replying to the Office on the same date, Mr. Dankoff agreed to the Office’s extension request. In its September 12, 2025 response, the Office indicated that it did not possess records responsive to some Items of Mr. Dankoff’s request and further advised it was withholding other responsive records “pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 236.6 and the CORI Law (G.L. c. 6 §167), as they operate through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law.” Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Dankoff contends that “Exemption (a) applies only to statutes, not regulations” and notes that, “[u]nder basic principles of statutory construction, the phrase [‘]by statute[’] should be read literally[.]” He further object’s to the Office’s claims under 8 C.F.R. § 236.6 and states that the cited federal regulation “[does] not create statutory prohibitions of disclosure of records for a county sheriff department, either specifically or by necessary implication.” Mr. Dankoff further states, “CORI exemptions do not apply” to records responsive to his request and explains, “[m]y request did not seek criminal histories, rap sheets, or any other CORI-defined records.”

Captain Jason Yuryan SPR25/3240 Page 3 November 19, 2025 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, 545-46 (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.” 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. Information Regarding Detainees In its response, the Office cited 8 C.F.R. § 236.6, a federal regulation promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which provides in pertinent part: No person, including any state or local government entity or any privately operated detention facility, that houses, maintains, provides services to, or otherwise holds any detainee on behalf of the Service (whether by contract or otherwise), and no other person who by virtue of any official or contractual relationship with such person obtains information relating to any detainee, shall disclose or otherwise permit to be made public the name of, or other information relating to, such detainee. Such information shall be under the control of the Service and shall be subject to public disclosure only pursuant to the provisions of applicable federal laws, regulations and executive orders. Insofar as any documents or other records contain such information, such documents shall not be public records. This section applies to all persons and information identified or described in it, regardless of when such persons obtained such information, and applies to all requests for public disclosure of such information, including requests that are the subject of proceedings pending as of April 17, 2002.

Captain Jason Yuryan SPR25/3240 Page 4 November 19, 2025 8 C.F.R. § 236.6. In claiming the above-cited federal regulation to withhold responsive records, the Office explained, “[t]he requested information contains information protected from disclosure by 8 C.F.R. § 236.6, and is only disclosable, if it is to be disclosed, by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and/or U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.” Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) In its response, the Office cited the CORI Act. The current definition of CORI provides: “Criminal offender record information,” records and data in any communicable form compiled by a Massachusetts criminal justice agency which concern an identifiable individual and relate to the nature or disposition of a criminal charge, an arrest, a pre-trial proceeding, other judicial proceedings, previous hearings conducted pursuant to section 58A of chapter 276 where the defendant was detained prior to trial or released with conditions under subsection (2) of section 58A of chapter 276, sentencing, incarceration, rehabilitation, or release. Such information shall be restricted to information recorded in criminal proceedings that are not dismissed before arraignment. Criminal offender record information shall not include evaluative information, statistical and analytical reports and files in which individuals are not directly or indirectly identifiable, or intelligence information. Criminal offender record information shall be limited to information concerning persons who have attained the age of 18 and shall not include any information concerning criminal offenses or acts of delinquency committed by any person before he attained the age of 18; provided, however, that if a person under the age of 18 was adjudicated as an adult in superior court or adjudicated as an adult after transfer of a case from a juvenile session to another trial court department, information relating to such criminal offense shall be criminal offender record information. Criminal offender record information shall not include information concerning any offenses which are not punishable by incarceration. G. L. c. 6, § 167. In its response, the Office additionally stated the following under CORI: Further, to the extent that the requests asks for: [‘]records and data in any communicable form compiled by a Massachusetts criminal justice agency which concern an identifiable individual and relate to the nature or disposition of a criminal charge, an arrest, a pre-trial proceeding, other judicial proceedings, previous hearings conducted pursuant to section 58A of chapter 276 where the defendant was detained prior to trial or released with conditions under subsection

Captain Jason Yuryan SPR25/3240 Page 5 November 19, 2025 (2) of section 58A of chapter 276, sentencing, incarceration, rehabilitation, or release[‘] such information is also protected from disclosure under the CORI Law. Upon review of the Office’s responses, I find the Office has not met its burden in responding to this request. The Office cites CORI, as it operates through Exemption (a), without any explanation of the applicability of the statute to any responsive records. Specifically, the Office has not demonstrated that the withheld records constitute “information recorded in criminal proceedings that are not dismissed before arraignment” as defined in G. L. c. 6, § 167. Additionally, the Office has not explained that it is an entity that has an official relationship with persons or entities who house, maintain, provide services to or otherwise hold detainees on behalf of DHS. Consequently, the Office has not demonstrated that the responsive records are the type of records contemplated under 8 C.F.R. § 236.6. Therefore, the Office has not met its burden to withhold the responsive records pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 236.6, as it operates through Exemption (a) of the Massachusetts Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 27(26)(a). Further, where the Office indicates that it, “has no . . . documents” responsive to “some” of the Items of Mr. Dankoff’s request, it is unclear which responsive records the Office does not possess. It is additionally unclear what records the Office intends to withhold from disclosure. To deny access to a record under the Public Records Law, a records access officer must identify the record, categories of records, or portions of the record it intends to withhold. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3)(c)(4). Here, the Office withheld responsive records without identifying which records those are. Therefore, the Office must identify the record(s) it has in its possession that it is withholding under Exemption (a), as well as provide specific reasons for such withholding. The Office must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Office is ordered to provide Mr. Dankoff with a response to his 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. Mr. Dankoff may appeal the substantive nature of the Office’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Joshua Dankoff