Dean Cavaretta v. Acton, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20253261)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 19, 2025 SPR25/3261 Rebecca LeBlanc Records Access Officer Acton Police Department 371 Main Street Acton, MA 01720 Dear Ms. LeBlanc: I have received the petition of Dean Cavaretta appealing the response of the Acton 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 31, 2025, Mr. Cavaretta requested, “a copy of a police report from the night of 12/28/2021…” The Department responded on November 3, and November 4, 2025. Unsatisfied with the responses, Mr. Cavaretta petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3261, was opened as a result. Status of the Requestor; Reason for the Request 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 G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Mr. Cavaretta’s status shall have no bearing on the public status of any existing responsive records. 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 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

Rebecca LeBlanc SPR25/3261 Page 2 November 19, 2025 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 Department’s November 3rd and November 4th Responses In its November 3, 2025 response, the Department stated, “[t]he Department will process all requests in the order they are received and may take up to 10 business days.” In its November 4, 2025 response, the Department cited Exemption (a) and Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold the police report in its entirety. 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

Rebecca LeBlanc SPR25/3261 Page 3 November 19, 2025 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 Department 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. Under G. L. c. 41, § 97D, the Department explains the following: You are seeking: a domestic violence report . . . dated 12/28/2001. One domestic incident report was found: 01act-p23050-of. . . . According to G.L. c. 41, § 97D, we must withhold all reports of domestic violence, rape, and sexual assault[.] . . . Since you are not the victim listed in incident report 01act-p23050-of, it is not releasable to you. Where the requested record concerns a report of abuse perpetrated by a family or household member, the record is restricted from disclosure in its entirety by the Legislature under G. L. c. 41, § 97D, as it operates through Exemption (a). Therefore, I find the Department 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”). Exemption (c) Exemption (c) permits the withholding of: personnel and medical files or information and any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; provided, however, that this subclause shall not apply to records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Second Clause – Privacy Analysis under the second clause of Exemption (c) is subjective in nature and requires a balancing of the public’s right to know against the relevant privacy interests at stake. Torres v.

Rebecca LeBlanc SPR25/3261 Page 4 November 19, 2025 Att’y Gen., 391 Mass. 1, 9 (1984); Att’y Gen. v. Assistant Comm’r of Real Prop. Dep’t, 380 Mass. 623, 625 (1980). Therefore, determinations must be made on a case-by-case basis. This clause does not protect all data relating to specifically named individuals. Rather, there are factors to consider when assessing the weight of the privacy interest at stake: (1) whether disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities; (2) whether the materials sought contain intimate details of a highly personal nature; and (3) whether the same information is available from other sources. See People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280, 292 (2017). The types of personal information which the second clause of this exemption is designed to protect includes: marital status, paternity, substance abuse, government assistance, family disputes and reputation. Id. at 292 n.13; see also Doe v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 415, 427 (1988) (holding that a motor vehicle licensee has a privacy interest in disclosure of his social security number). This clause requires a balancing test which provides that where the public interest in obtaining the requested information substantially outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy, the private interest in preventing disclosure must yield. PETA, 477 Mass. at 291. The public has a recognized interest in knowing whether public servants are carrying out their duties in a law-abiding and efficient manner. Id. at 292. In its November 4th response, the Department states, “personal identifying information, as defined in the Massachusetts Public Records Law, includes license numbers, social security numbers and dates of birth.” Where the Department has met its burden to withhold the responsive record under Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law, I decline to opine on the claim of Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Cavaretta 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).

Rebecca LeBlanc SPR25/3261 Page 5 November 19, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Dean Cavaretta