Joshua Dankoff v. Barnstable County Sheriff's Office (SPR 20253241)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 18, 2025 SPR25/3241 Michael B. Halpin, Esq. General Counsel Barnstable County Sheriff’s Office 6000 Sheriff’s Place Bourne, MA 02532 Dear Attorney Halpin: I have received the petition of Joshua Dankoff, of Citizens for Juvenile Justice, appealing the response of the Barnstable 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 12, 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 (e.g., emails, text messages, call logs or transcripts, or otherwise) between an office employee and a federal DHS or ICE employee. In addition, I request all records related to these communications, including, but not limited to, any records indicating that the office was made aware of the communications, discussions of their content or implications, evaluations them for compliance with office policies, identification or acknowledgment of any potential policy violations, and any internal responses, disciplinary actions, or follow-up measures resulting from 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 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

Michael B. Halpin, Esq. SPR25/3241 Page 2 November 18, 2025 call records (including logs showing incoming/outgoing calls and, if available, call summaries or transcripts), text messages (including those sent or received on personal or departmental devices), and any internal notes, memos, or documentation referencing communication with DHS or ICE. The Office provided a response on September 12, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Office’s response, Mr. Dankoff appealed, and this case SPR25/3241, 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). 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. 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 Office’s September 12th Response In its September 12, 2025 response, the Office cited G. L. c. 6, § 167 (Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) Act), 8 C.F.R. § 236.6, and 103 C.M.R. 918.00, as they operate through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law to withhold responsive records. Additionally, the Office cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold responsive records in their entirety. Finally, the Office provided records responsive to Item 1. Current Appeal In his November 4, 2025 petition to this office, Mr. Dankoff objected to the Office withholding records under Exemption (a). Mr. Dankoff does not appear to object to the Office withholding records under Exemption (c).

Michael B. Halpin, Esq. SPR25/3241 Page 3 November 18, 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, 545-546 (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. Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) The current definition of CORI is as follows: “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

Michael B. Halpin, Esq. SPR25/3241 Page 4 November 18, 2025 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 September 12th response, the Office argues, “these responsive records…plainly concern the incarceration of an identifiable individual and are also, in whole or part, statutorily exempt from public disclosure…” The Office also cites 8 C.F.R. § 236.6, 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. 8 C.F.R. § 236.6. In its September 12th response, the Office argues, “the BSCO is able to report that it does possess records concerning fourteen (14) immigration detainers on persons held in BCSO custody between January 1, 2025 and August 29, 2025, four of whom were taken into ICE custody upon their release from the BCSO. However, these responsive records are expressly exempt from public disclosure…” The Office further cites 103 C.M.R. 918.00, which provides in pertinent part: All inmate records shall be handled strictly in accordance with the relevant requirements imposed by the regulations of the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services (DCJIS) (M.G.L. c. 6, §§ 167 through 178; 803 CMR 2.00: Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI)).

Michael B. Halpin, Esq. SPR25/3241 Page 5 November 18, 2025 103 C.M.R. 918.00. Burden of Specificity in Claiming Exemptions Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be upon the records custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption. 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. Based on the Office’s response, 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, based on the information provided in the Office’s September 12th response, 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). The Office must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Office is ordered to provide Mr. Dankoff with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten (10) 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