Brito, Albert v. Framingham, City of - Police Department (SPR 20260073)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 22, 2026 SPR26/0073 Colleen Kehew Records Access Officer Framingham Police Department 150 Concord Street Framingham, MA 01702 Dear Ms. Kehew: I have received the petition of Alberto Brito appealing the response of the Framingham 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 22, 2025, Mr. Brito requested the following: [1] “Framingham Police Department – Media Arrest Summary, by Name” (12/18/2025) – unredacted. Please provide the unredacted version of the “Media Arrest Summary, by Name” report covering all arrests occurring on 12/18/2025…. The version produced to date states “Total Arrests Reported: 8” but appears to display only five named arrestee entries…. [2] “Framingham Police Department – Police Public Log” (12/18/2025) – entries withheld in full[.] Please provide the Police Public Log entries for 12/18/2025 that were withheld/redacted in their entirety in the version previously released to the public. My request is limited to the three log entries corresponding to the three sex-crime sting arrests on 12/18/2025…. The Department responded on January 6, 2026, and assigned reference number 2025- 4320 to the request. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Brito petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0073, was opened as a result. On January 21, 2026, subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the Department provided a further response. 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

Colleen Kehew SPR26/0073 Page 2 January 22, 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 January 6th Response In its January 6, 2026 response, the Department cited the Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) Act and G. L. c. 41, § 97D, as the statutes operate through Exemption (a), and Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law, to withhold responsive records. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a), (c). On January 21, 2026, subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the Department provided a further response, citing the same statutes and exemptions as noted above, and clarifying, “[n]o records were provided to the requestor since the redacted version was already posted.” Current appeal In his appeal, Mr. Brito contends the following: I appeal the Framingham Police Department’s denial of Request No. 2025- 4320…. The Department withheld, in full, (1) the unredacted “Media Arrest Summary, by Name” for 12/18/2025 and (2) the three “Police Public Log” entries for 12/18/2025 that were removed/redacted in their entirety. The denial relies on CORI / Exemption (a), G.L. c. 41, §97D, and Exemption (c). None justifies blanket withholding of entire arrest/log entries that the Department itself typically publishes publicly. …

Colleen Kehew SPR26/0073 Page 3 January 22, 2026 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). 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. Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) The current definition of CORI is as follows: “Criminal offender record information”, records and data in any communicable form compiled by a Massachusetts criminal justice agency which concern an identifiable individual and relate to the nature or disposition of a criminal charge, an arrest, a pre-trial proceeding, other judicial proceedings, previous hearings conducted pursuant to section 58A of chapter 276 where the defendant was detained prior to trial or released with conditions under subsection (2) of section 58A of chapter 276, sentencing, incarceration, rehabilitation, or release. Such information shall be restricted to information recorded in criminal proceedings that are not dismissed before arraignment. Criminal offender record information shall not include evaluative information, statistical and analytical reports and files in which individuals are not directly or indirectly identifiable, or intelligence information. Criminal offender record information shall be limited to information concerning persons who have attained the age of 18 and shall not include any information concerning criminal offenses or acts of delinquency committed by

Colleen Kehew SPR26/0073 Page 4 January 22, 2026 any person before he attained the age of 18; provided, however, that if a person under the age of 18 was adjudicated as an adult in superior court or adjudicated as an adult after transfer of a case from a juvenile session to another trial court department, information relating to such criminal offense shall be criminal offender record information. Criminal offender record information shall not include information concerning any offenses which are not punishable by incarceration. G. L. c. 6, § 167. Additionally, G. L. c. 6, § 172(m) provides in pertinent part: Notwithstanding this section or chapter 66A, the following shall be public records: (1) police daily logs, arrest registers, or other similar records compiled chronologically; (2) chronologically maintained court records of public judicial proceedings; (3) published records of public court or administrative proceedings, and of public judicial administrative or legislative proceedings; and (4) decisions of the parole board as provided in section 130 of chapter 127. G. L. c. 6, § 172(m). In its January 6th response, under Exemption (a), the Department asserts, “[t]he CORI statute imposes restrictions on the dissemination of records which were compiled by the Department concerning an identifiable individual which relate to the nature or disposition of a criminal charge, an arrest, a pre-trial proceeding, other judicial proceedings, sentencing, incarceration, rehabilitation, or release. Therefore, these records are being withheld pursuant to Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law.” Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear how the requested records may be withheld under CORI as it operates through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. Specifically, the Department has not demonstrated that the requested records constitute “information recorded in criminal proceedings that are not dismissed before arraignment” as defined in G. L. c. 6, § 167. Further, it is unclear how the records in question would not constitute the sort of “police daily logs, arrest registers, or other similar records compiled chronologically” described in G. L. c. 6, § 172(m). The Department must clarify these matters. Additionally, in its January 6th response, the Department cited G. L. c. 41, § 97D to withhold a responsive records. 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

Colleen Kehew SPR26/0073 Page 5 January 22, 2026 maintained by the police departments in a manner that shall assure their confidentiality… G. L. c. 41, § 97D. In its January 6th response, under Exemption (a), the Department merely quotes the above statute without any explanation of its applicability to the requested records. Based upon the Department’s response, it is unclear how the requested records are restricted under G. L. c. 41, § 97D as it operates through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. It is also uncertain how the requested records are the type contemplated under G. L. c. 41, § 97D. The Department must clarify these matters. Exemption (c) Exemption (c) permits the withholding of: personnel and medical files or information and any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; provided, however, that this subclause shall not apply to records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Second Clause – Privacy Analysis under the second clause of Exemption (c) is subjective in nature and requires a balancing of the public’s right to know against the relevant privacy interests at stake. Torres v. Att’y Gen., 391 Mass. 1, 9 (1984); Att’y Gen. v. Assistant Comm’r of Real Prop. Dep’t, 380 Mass. 623, 625 (1980). Therefore, determinations must be made on a case-by-case basis. This clause does not protect all data relating to specifically named individuals. Rather, there are factors to consider when assessing the weight of the privacy interest at stake: (1) whether disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities; (2) whether the materials sought contain intimate details of a highly personal nature; and (3) whether the same information is available from other sources. See People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280, 292 (2017). The types of personal information which the second clause of this exemption is designed to protect includes: marital status, paternity, substance abuse, government assistance, family disputes and reputation. Id. at 292 n.13; see also Doe v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 415, 427 (1988) (holding that a motor vehicle licensee has a privacy interest in disclosure of his social security number).

Colleen Kehew SPR26/0073 Page 6 January 22, 2026 This clause requires a balancing test which provides that where the public interest in obtaining the requested information substantially outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy, the private interest in preventing disclosure must yield. PETA, 477 Mass. at 291. The public has a recognized interest in knowing whether public servants are carrying out their duties in a law-abiding and efficient manner. Id. at 292. In its January 6th response, the Department merely cites the second clause of Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law without any explanation of its applicability to the requested records. Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear how the requested records contain intimate details of a highly personal nature, or how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. It is additionally uncertain whether any of the withheld information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. Also, the Department did not provide information with respect to the balancing test, which examines whether the public interest in obtaining the requested information outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy. Id. The Department must clarify these matters. Further, the Department must clarify how the records can be withheld in their entirety and why segregable portions cannot be provided. 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). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Brito with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) 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. Brito 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: Alberto Brito