Brigley, Raymond v. Worcester, City of (SPR 20260017)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 16, 2026 SPR26/0017 Michael Manning Records Access Officer Law Department City of Worcester 455 Main Street, Room 301 Worcester, MA 01608 Dear Mr. Manning: I have received the petition of Raymond Brigley appealing the response of the Worcester 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 7, 2025, Mr. Brigley requested, “all body and vehicle cams” related to a June 30, 2024 incident that occurred “around 7 am.” Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/3637 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 22, 2025). In my December 22nd determination, I ordered the Department to clarify how the requested records fall within the type of records contemplated in G. L. c. 41, § 97D. The Department responded on December 23, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Brigley petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0017, 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. Brigley’s status shall have no bearing on the public status of any existing responsive records. 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 Manning SPR26/0017 Page 2 January 16, 2026 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 December 23rd Response In its December 23, 2025 response, the Department cited G. L. c. 41, § 97D as it operates through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law and stated, “[t]he Worcester Police Department characterized this incident as a ‘domestic dispute’ and advised the victim of her chapter 209A rights, thereby subjecting the records to the exemption…Under circumstances when a personal representative has a good faith basis to bring a lawsuit, the representative could seek records and information by other means including subpoena, record requests, and interrogatories. The party served with a subpoena, records requests and interrogatories would be entitled to assert objections and seek appropriate protective orders to such requests in the proper forum.” See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). Current Appeal In his January 5, 2026 appeal to this office, Mr. Brigley stated, “…[t]he City is utilizing G.L. c. 41, § 97D to withhold these records. However, in their recent correspondence, the Solicitor characterized the incident as a ‘domestic dispute’ and not the required domestic ‘abuse’ as required…In the Solicitor’s subsequent responses, he still failed to explain how this specific incident meets the statutory definition of § 97D…” Exemption (a) Exemption (a), known as the statutory exemption, permits the withholding of records that are:

Michael Manning SPR26/0017 Page 3 January 16, 2026 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). 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 Department cited G. L. c. 41, § 97D to withhold the responsive records in their entirety. G. L. c. 41, § 97D provides in pertinent 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 G. L. c. 41, § 97D.

Michael Manning SPR26/0017 Page 4 January 16, 2026 In Camera Inspection In order to facilitate a determination as to the applicability of the Exemption (a) claim made by the Department to withhold the responsive records, the Department must provide this office with an un-redacted copy of the responsive records for in camera inspection. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4). After I complete my review of the records, I will return the records to the Department’s custody and issue an opinion on the public or exempt nature of the records. The authority to require the submission of records for an in camera inspection emanates from the Code of Massachusetts Regulations. 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4); see also G. L. c. 66, § 1. This office interprets the in camera inspection process to be analogous to that utilized by the judicial system. See Rock v. Mass. Comm’n Against Discrimination, 384 Mass. 198, 206 (1981) (administrative agency entitled deference in the interpretation of its own regulations). Records are not voluntarily submitted, but rather are submitted pursuant to an order by this office that an in camera inspection is necessary to make a proper finding. Records are submitted for the limited purpose of review. This office is not the custodian or records examined in camera, therefore, any request made to this office for records being reviewed in camera will be denied. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4)(c). This office has a long history of cooperation with governmental agencies with respect to in camera inspection. Custodians submit copies of the relevant records to this office upon a promise of confidentiality. This office does not release records reviewed in camera to anyone under any circumstances. Upon a determination of the public record status, records reviewed in camera are promptly returned to the custodian. To operate in any other fashion would seriously impede our ability to function and would certainly affect our credibility within the legal community. Please be aware, any cover letter submitted to accompany the relevant records may be subject to disclosure. Order Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide this office with an un-redacted copy of the responsive records for in camera inspection without delay. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Raymond Brigley Kevin Foley, Esq.