Daniel, Ted v. Lowell, City of - Police Department (SPR 20260134)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 29, 2026 SPR26/0134 John Pyers Records Access Officer Lowell Police Department 50 Arcand Drive Lowell, MA 01852 Dear Mr. Pyers: I have received the petition of Ted Daniel, of WFXT-TV, Boston 25 News, appealing the response of the Lowell 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 4, 2025, Mr. Daniel requested the following: [1] The police report(s) from the initial call where officers encountered a minor who stated a connection to [an identified individual][;] [2] The CAD report from that call[;] [3] All body camera video from that call[;] [4] All internal affairs reports associated with this incident[.] Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR25/3657 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 23, 2025). In my December 23rd determination, I found that Department has not met its burden in responding to the request. The Department was advised that under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be on the custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption to withhold or redact records. Further, I ordered the Department to identify the records it was withholding. The Department responded on January 8, 2026. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Daniel petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0134, 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 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

John Pyers SPR25/3657 Page 2 January 29, 2026 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 8th Response In its January 8, 2026 response, the Department cited Exemptions (a), (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested records. Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Daniel advises that “[t]he [department] ... essentially provided me with the same response twice.” 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, 545-46 (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

John Pyers SPR25/3657 Page 3 January 29, 2026 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 states as follows: In response to the order of the Supervisor of Records related to SPR25/3657, as it relates to your public records request dated December 4, 2025, please be advised that [1], [2], [3], and [4] of your request are exempt from disclosure by Exemption (a). The records you requested are specifically exempt from disclosure in their entirety by the Legislature. In the context of this particular public records request, citing the specific statute would effectively reveal information that could then lead to public reporting on this matter regarding an individual that is not a law enforcement officer. The Legislature exempted these records in their entirety to avoid that result; therefore, in this case, the statute cannot be identified without defeating the exemption’s purpose. While the records are exempt in their entirety under Exemption (a), we would further point out that Exemption (c) and Exemption (f) have applicability as well. In Camera Inspection In order to facilitate a determination as to the applicability of the Department’s claims to withhold the records pursuant to Exemptions (a), (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law, the Department must provide this office with an un-redacted copy of the responsive records for in camera inspection. After I complete my review of the documents, I will return the records to your custody and issue an opinion on the public or exempt nature of the records. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4). 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. Massachusetts 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).

John Pyers SPR25/3657 Page 4 January 29, 2026 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: Ted Daniel