Puglisi, Dave v. Gardner, City of- Police Department (SPR 20260089)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 27, 2026 SPR26/0089 Eric P. McAvene Chief of Police Gardner Police Department 200 Main Street Gardner, MA 01440 Dear Chief McAvene: I have received the petition of Dave Puglisi, of 7 News Boston WHDH, appealing the response of the Gardner 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 29, 2025, Mr. Puglisi requested the police report and video of a specified incident. The Department responded on January 9, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Puglisi petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/0089, 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 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

Chief Eric P. McAvene SPR26/0089 Page 2 January 27, 2026 custodian must provide the responsive records. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Puglisi contends that “it is in the public’s interest to know how [a named individual] was able to get out. There are hundreds of patients admitted to Heywood hospital right now. The facility likely sees thousands of patients a year, I think it is in the public’s interest to know if their loved one is safe inside Heywood Hospital.” He goes on to argue the following: Again, a man is missing and every second matters. I feel finding him is beneficial to the public and the investigation. His family, volunteers and the media are trying to help. Withholding this information is actively harming an individual. The Department’s January 9th Response In its January 9, 2026 response, the Department cites Exemptions (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law for withholding responsive records. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c), (f). In an email to this office on January 12, 2026, the Department further explained that “this incident resulted in charges being filed with the district court and since we are actively still looking for [the named individual], he has not been arraigned on those charges making it an open investigation.” Pending Litigation 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. This office has reviewed the docket of the trial court and verified that the requested records are the subject of active and ongoing litigation in Gardner District Court. See Commonwealth v. Leonard Mercury, (Gardner District Court Docket Nos. 2563CR000769 and 2563CR000773) (October 31, 2025). In light of the pending litigation, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Additionally, I decline to opine on the applicability of Exemptions (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law to the requested records. Please note that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b).

Chief Eric P. McAvene SPR26/0089 Page 3 January 27, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Dave Puglisi