Ted Daniel v. Lowell, City of - Police Department (SPR 20253657)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 23, 2025 SPR25/3657 John Pyers Records Access Officer Lowell Police Department 50 Arcand Drive Lowell, MA 01852 Dear Mr. Pyers: I have received the petition of Ted Daniel, of WFXT-TV, Boston 25 News, appealing the response of the Lowell 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 December 4, 2025, Mr. Daniel requested the following: [1] The police report(s) from the initial call where officers encountered a minor who stated a connection to [an identified individual][;] [2] The CAD report from that call[;] [3] All body camera video from that call[;] [4] All internal affairs reports associated with this incident[.] The Department provided a response on December 8, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Daniel petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3657, 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 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

John Pyers SPR25/3657 Page 2 December 23, 2025 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 December 8th Response In its December 8, 2025 response, the Department cited Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested records. Current Appeal In his December 11, 2025 appeal, Mr. Daniel asserts, “[t]he department provided a generic and blanket exemption to withhold multiple records. I urge you to order Lowell Police to produce the records as they involve an officer who’s already been terminated by the department.” 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

John Pyers SPR25/3657 Page 3 December 23, 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 states, “... the records you are asking for are exempt under Exemption A.” Burden of Specificity In this case, the Department has not met its burden in responding to the request. The Department is advised that under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be on the custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption to withhold or redact records. The Department merely cites Exemption (a) without identifying a statute through which it could operate. Please be advised that for Exemption (a) to apply, the Department must cite a statute and said statute must either expressly state that the withheld record is not subject to disclosure under the Public Records Law, or limit dissemination of said information to a defined group or individuals or entities. Consequently, I find the Department has not met its burden to withhold the responsive records from disclosure. The Department must identify the statute and explain with specificity, how the statute specifically or by necessary implication permits it to withhold the requested records from disclosure. Additionally, it is unclear which specific records the Department intends to withhold. See 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 Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Daniel with a response to the 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. Daniel may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Ted Daniel