Joshua Dankoff v. Bristol County Sheriff's Office (SPR 20253295)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 24, 2025 SPR25/3295 Michael C. Arnold Public Records Access Officer Bristol County Sheriff’s Office 400 Faunce Corner Road Dartmouth, MA 02747 Dear Officer Arnold: I have received the petition of Joshua Dankoff, of Citizens for Juvenile Justice, appealing the response of the Bristol 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 acknowledgement 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 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 C. Arnold SPR25/3295 Page 2 November 24, 2025 custody was taken into ICE custody. For each incident, the records request includes, but is not limited to, emails, phone 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 responded on August 27, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Office’s response, Mr. Dankoff petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/3295, 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. 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 August 27th Response Regarding Item 1 of the request, the Office stated, “[n]o records exist relating to [Office] policies that specifically includes 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).” Regarding Item 2 of the request, the Office stated, [The Office] has provided you with three (3) recent emails of communication between [Office] employees and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; however, certain information has been redacted, pursuant to M.G.L. c. 4, §7(26) (a): results (names of detainees, date of births, and any other identifiable information mentioned in BCSO emails) because it includes “Criminal Offender

Michael C. Arnold SPR25/3295 Page 3 November 24, 2025 Record Information, (CORI) [sic]. The Department is prohibited by law from providing criminal offender record information (CORI). Massachusetts law defines CORI as records and data compiled by a 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, sentencing, incarceration, rehabilitation, or release. One (1) recent email was withheld based on the document containing names and information relating to immigration detainees information are also exempt from disclosure under G.L. c. 7, § 26(a), which exempts records that are “specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute.” The statute covered by this exemption is 8 C.F.R. § 236.6… Regarding Item 3 of the request, the Office stated, [The Office] has provided you with seventeen (17) emails of communication between BCSO employees and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; however, certain information has been redacted, pursuant to M.G.L. c. 4, §7(26) (a): results (names of detainees, date of births, and any other personal identifiable information mentioned in BCSO emails) because it includes “Criminal Offender Record Information, (CORI) [sic]. The Department is prohibited by law from providing criminal offender record information (CORI). Massachusetts law defines CORI as records and data compiled by a 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, sentencing, incarceration, rehabilitation, or release. The names and information relating to immigration detainees information is also exempt from disclosure under G.L. c. 7, §26(a), which exempts records that are “specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute.” The statute covered by this exemption is 8 C.F.R. § 236.6… Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 236.6, sixty five (65) e-mails have been withheld as they contain names and/or information relating to any detainee. Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Dankoff states, “I am appealing [the Office’s] use of 8 CFR 236(6) to withhold one email. I do not appeal any of their redactions, nor do I seek the names of detainees. I do seek the email record that they reference in the letter that was withheld under exemption (a), and it would be acceptable (even preferred) that they be ordered to produce a redacted version.”

Michael C. Arnold SPR25/3295 Page 4 November 24, 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. In its response the Office cites 8 C.F.R. § 236.6 which provides in pertinent part as follows: 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.

Michael C. Arnold SPR25/3295 Page 5 November 24, 2025 8 C.F.R. 236.6. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the Office contacted the Public Records Division via email on November 17, 2025. The Office stated “[t]he email in question consisted only of the name and other identifying information of an inmate with an ICE Detainer. The [Office] has an official relationship with DHS. Pursuant to the decision of the Public Records Division SPR25-1221 this email, as a document containing the name and other information of a detainee is exempt. Notably under 8 C.F.R. § 236.6 the entire document, not just the detainee’s information is exempt from disclosure.” Based on the information provided in the Office’s August 27th and November 17th responses, the Office has explained that it has an official relationship with persons or entities who house, maintain, provide services to or otherwise hold detainees on behalf of DHS. Additionally, the Office has explained that the responsive records contain the name of or other information relating to detainees. Consequently, the Office has demonstrated that the responsive record is the type of record contemplated under 8 C.F.R. § 236.6. Accordingly, where the Office has demonstrated that it is prohibited from releasing the immigration detainers under federal regulation, I find that the Office has 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, § 7(26)(a). Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Dankoff 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. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Joshua Dankoff