Fanale, Michael v. Natick, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20260004)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 15, 2026 SPR26/0004 Danielle M. Corda Administrative Assistant Records Division Natick Police Department 20 East Central Street Natick, MA 01760 Dear Ms. Corda: I have received the petition of Michael Fanale appealing the response of the Natick 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 November 2, 2025, Mr. Fanale requested: Any record indicating that [an identified individual], or any employee or representative of the Massachusetts Trial Court (including the Family Services Office) or Lowell District / Probate and Family Court, requested or obtained any police report, incident narrative, or other record concerning [two identified individuals] from your department for the period June 1, 2025 to present. This request is limited solely to confirming whether such a request occurred. It does not seek the contents of any communication, record, or investigation — only the existence of a request or transmission. If responsive records exist, please provide: • the date of the request or communication, • the sender and recipient names (titles sufficient), and • the general method of transmission (e.g., email, fax, in-person). If no such records exist, please confirm that fact in writing. On November 24, 2025, Mr. Fanale specified: 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

Danielle M. Corda SPR26/0004 Page 2 January 15, 2026 Does the Natick Police Department possess any record indicating that [an identified individual] or any court representative requested or received any record related to [two identified individuals] since June 1, 2025? A simple “yes” or “no” will suffice. On November 25, 2025, Mr. Fanale further clarified: To be clear, I am not requesting the contents of any such communication or release—only a yes or no as to whether the Department has any record indicating that such a request or transfer occurred. The Department responded on November 22, 2025, November 24, 2025, November 25, 2025, and November 26, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Fanale petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0004, 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 Department’s Responses On November 24, 2025, the Department stated: The Natick Police Department does not have a centralized repository that keeps all public records requests made to the department, nor are requestors required to identify themselves when requesting a report. The department has no ability to provide information on if a request occurred from a specific individual and/or

Danielle M. Corda SPR26/0004 Page 3 January 15, 2026 how many times a request has been regarding a specific incident as a result this department must deny this request as we do not have custody, possession or control of these records. On November 25, 2025, the Department stated: As for your public records request the response given by me on November 24, 2025 you have requested if any requests have been made but a public records request is for a specific record that already exists which this is not. Being a municipality the Natick Police Department does not have a centralized repository for all public records requests made to the department, nor are requestors required to identify themselves when requesting a report. As a result, the department has no ability to provide information on if a request occurred from a specific individual and/or how many times a request has been regarding a specific incident. On November 26, 2025, the Department stated: The department has already responded to your November 2, 2025 request. Your inquiry does not request a specific existing record and therefore does not fall within the Public Records Law. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Fanale contends: The request seeks only confirmation of the existence or nonexistence of requests for records. It does not seek record contents or exempt material and imposes minimal administrative burden. Confirmation of existence or nonexistence is a recognized and required response under the Public Records Law. No Duty to Answer Questions or Create Records Please note that the duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). Under the Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). In this case, where Mr. Fanale submitted to the Department a series of questions, and the Department is not required to answer questions in response to a records request, I find the Department has met its burden in responding to this request.

Danielle M. Corda SPR26/0004 Page 4 January 15, 2026 Conclusion Accordingly, where the Department has confirmed that it does not possess records responsive to the request, and has no duty to answer questions, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. Mr. Fanale is advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Michael Fanale