Anees, Asad v. Mansfield, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20260133)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 28, 2026 SPR26/0133 Matthew Todesco Records Access Officer Mansfield Police Department 500A East Street Mansfield, MA 02048 Dear Mr. Todesco: I have received the petition of Asad Anees appealing the response of the Mansfield 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 15, 2025, Mr. Anees requested: [C]opies of any non-exempt and reasonably segregable portions of records related to the following police incident: Incident Number: 24MAS-1200-OF Incident Date: October 25, 2024 Description: Police response categorized as “Domestic Issues – 10/25/24” Specifically, I am requesting, to the extent permitted by law: [1] Incident logs and call summaries[;] [2] Date, time, and location of the police response[;] [3] Names and badge numbers of responding officers[;] [4] Incident classification codes and administrative fields[;] [5] All audio recordings, including but not limited to: [a] 911 call recordings[;] [b] Police dispatch radio communications[.] [6] All video recordings, including but not limited to: [a] Body-worn camera footage[;] [b] Cruiser/dash camera footage[;] [c] Station or booking-area video, if any[;] [d] Any other administrative, factual, or metadata information that is reasonably segregable from exempt narrative content[.] 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

Matthew Todesco SPR26/0133 Page 2 January 28, 2026 The Department responded on December 17, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Anees petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0133, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the Department provided a further response to Mr. Anees and this office on January 14, 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. 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. Anees’ status shall have no bearing on the public status of any existing responsive records. The Department’s December 17th and January 14th Responses On December 17, 2025, the Department cited Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law and specifically G. L. c. 41, § 97D, to withhold the requested records. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). On January 14, 2026, the Department stated, “[o]nce again I just wanted to remind [Mr. Anees] per our conversation in the lobby of the police station that this was a domestic matter. . . . As such the state allows the department to withhold the record under Exemption A.”

Matthew Todesco SPR26/0133 Page 3 January 28, 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, 54 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-46 (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 cites G. L. c. 41, § 97D, which provides in relevant 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 ... G. L. c. 41, § 97D. In its response, the Department stated: The Department intends to withhold the above-referenced requested records due to the applicability of the following exemptions and the reasons set forth below:

Matthew Todesco SPR26/0133 Page 4 January 28, 2026 Exemption (a): This exemption applies to records that are “specifically or by necessary implication exempt from disclosure by statute.” In particular, G.L. c. 41, section 97D requires law enforcement agencies to keep the following information confidential: “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 ...” The Department contended, “…this was a domestic matter ... As such the state allows the department to withhold the record under Exemption A.” In camera inspection In order to facilitate a determination as to the applicability of the Exemption (a) claim made by the Department to redact responsive records, the Department must provide this office with un-redacted copies 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 of 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.

Matthew Todesco SPR26/0133 Page 5 January 28, 2026 Order Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide this office with un-redacted copies of the responsive records for in camera inspection without delay. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Asad Anees