Kyle Goodwin v. Yarmouth, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20253537)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 15, 2025 SPR25/3537 Nicholas R. Giammarco Records and Evidence Division Yarmouth Police Department One Brad Erickson Way West Yarmouth, MA 02673 Dear Mr. Giammarco: I have received the petition of Kyle Goodwin appealing the response of the Yarmouth 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 15, 2025, Mr. Goodwin requested “[a]ll documents related to the pre-employment background investigation regarding [an identified] police candidate … Documents requested include, but are not limited to:” [1] Employment application[;] [2] Candidate Information Packet[;] [3] Copies of any investigative interviews with references provided by the candidate or otherwise developed[;] [4] Any reports created by the background investigator or otherwise[; and] [5] Any letters, emails, reports, text messages, or voicemails, which document the reason(s) why my participation and involvement in the hiring process was discontinued. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/3140 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 7, 2025). In my November 7th determination, I found that the Department must identify the types of records it had in its possession and clarify why the records must be withheld in their entirety under Exemption (c). The Department responded on November 10, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Goodwin petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/3537, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the Department provided a supplemental response on December 8, 2025. 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

Nicholas R. Giammarco SPR25/3537 Page 6 December 15, 2025 Status of the Requestor 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). Therefore, Mr. Goodwin’s interest in obtaining the records shall have no bearing on the public nature of the record. 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 Department’s November 10th Response In its November 10, 2025 response, the Department stated it was withholding records pursuant to Exemptions (a) and (c). The Department further stated it had redacted records pursuant to Exemption (c). Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Goodwin stated the following: 1. Exemption (a) was invoked without identifying any statute restricting disclosure. I believe Exemption (a) requires a specific statutory citation, and none was provided.

Nicholas R. Giammarco SPR25/3537 Page 6 December 15, 2025 2. Exemption (c) was asserted in general terms only, without describing the nature of the redacted and/or withheld material nor explaining how the exemption applies to each specific document / portion of said document(s). 3. The response does not include the required segregation analysis. Entire pages and entire sections of pages were withheld outright without any explanation of which portions were non-exempt and could be released. 4. The Department did not provide the itemized, detailed justification required by your November 7 directive—specifically, a clear explanation of what is being withheld and why, beginning from the presumption that all responsive records are public. 5. The rationale previously provided to your office via e-mail following your first contact with them and cited in your follow-up letter (regarding “reprisal”) was not included in this latest formal response, resulting in inconsistent and incomplete justifications. This inconsistency and elimination of rationale(s) may be concerning. 6. The Department’s response identifies certain pages in an “Applicant Profile” (pages 4-5 redacted, and pages 17-19, 51–59 withheld), but it does not describe what those pages contain or explain how the cited exemptions apply to the specific material on each page. This falls short of your November 7 directive, which required a meaningful explanation of what is being withheld, a description of the withheld material, the specific basis for each redaction or withholding, and a segregation analysis identifying which portions, if any, are non-exempt and must be released. 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, 54 (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

Nicholas R. Giammarco SPR25/3537 Page 6 December 15, 2025 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. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the Department contacted this office via email on December 8, 2025, to further elaborate on their redactions on pages 3-5 and withholding of pages 51-59 of the Department’s Response. The Department stated, M.G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a) is applicable to portions of the redactions on pages 3-5 and the withholding of pages 51-59 of the Department’s response. Specifically, these sections detail allegations of domestic violence from a previous intimate partner and were withheld in accordance with M.G.L. c. 41, § 97D….The Department has no discretion to release such information as it is statutorily protected—for good reason. Victims of domestic violence situations are unlikely to be truthful with investigators if they believe their response will be shared with an alleged abuser. This is the exact type of information a police department should be aware of when reviewing potential candidates for a position which will grant them this great level of power in their community. A candidate for police officer with credible allegations of past domestic violence is undoubtedly unfit for such a role and sharing these allegations represents a significant risk to those who agree to share such information. G. L. c. 41, § 97D provides in relevant 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; provided, however, that all such reports shall be accessible at all reasonable times, upon written request, to: (i) the victim, the victim’s attorney, others specifically authorized by the victim to obtain such information, prosecutors and (ii) victim-witness advocates as defined in section 1 of chapter 258B, domestic violence victims’ counselors as defined in section 20K of chapter 233, sexual assault counselors as defined in section 20J of chapter 233, if such access is necessary in the performance of their duties; and provided further, that all such reports shall be accessible at all reasonable times, upon written, telephonic, facsimile or electronic mail request to law enforcement officers, district attorneys or assistant district attorneys and all persons authorized to admit persons to bail pursuant to section 57 of chapter 276

Nicholas R. Giammarco SPR25/3537 Page 6 December 15, 2025 G. L. c. 41, § 97D. Where the redacted and withheld portions of the records are restricted from disclosure in their entirety by the Legislature under G. L. c. 41, § 97D, as it operates through Exemption (a), 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 “shall not be public reports and shall be maintained by the police departments in a manner that shall assure their confidentiality”). Consequently, I decline to opine on the Department’s Exemption (c) claim, supporting non- disclosure of the requested records. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Goodwin 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 administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Kyle Goodwin