Paul Majkut v. Millis, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20253671)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 23, 2025 SPR25/3671 Sergeant John Shearns Records Access Officer Millis Police Department 1003 Main Street Millis, MA 02054 Dear Sergeant Shearns: I have received the petition of Paul Majkut appealing the response of the Millis 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 August 26, 2025, Mr. Majkut requested a police report for an identified individual for “an incident involving the Millis Police on August 17.” The Department responded on September 14, 2025 and November 1, 2025. Unsatisfied with the responses, Mr. Majkut petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3671, was opened as a result. 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). Accordingly, Mr. Majkut’s status has 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

Sergeant John Shearns SPR25/3671 Page 2 December 23, 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. 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 Department’s September 14th and November 1st Responses In its September 14, 2025 response, the Department stated, “I am in receipt of your recent records request. Due to public records exceptions, I am denying this request.” In its November 1, 2024 response, the Department cited G. L. c. 19A & 23 as they operate through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law and stated, “[p]lease note, a legal guardian with proper ID would be allowed access with in-person pickup.” See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). Current Appeal In his December 12, 2025 appeal to this office, Mr. Majkut objected to the Department’s withholding of records. 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).

Sergeant John Shearns SPR25/3671 Page 3 December 23, 2025 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 November 1st response, under Exemption (a), the Department cites G. L. c. 19A and G. L. c. 23. Please note that G. L. c. 19A concerns the Department of Elder Affairs and G. L. c. 23 concerns the Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development. 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 Department’s response, it is unclear which statute or statutes the Department is referring to under Exemption (a) in order to withhold the responsive records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv). The Department must clarify what statute it claims either specifically, or by necessary implication, permits withholding of the responsive records, and must explain with specificity how such a statute applies. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). It is also not clear from the Department’s response what responsive records are being withheld from disclosure. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); see also Globe Newspaper Co., 419 Mass. at 857; Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511. Further, it is uncertain how the records can be withheld in their entirety. See 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). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). The Department must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Majkut with a response to his 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

Sergeant John Shearns SPR25/3671 Page 4 December 23, 2025 pre@sec.state.ma.us. Mr. Majkut may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Paul Majkut