Manka, William v. Burlington, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20260212)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 4, 2026 SPR26/0212 Captain Kevin Cooney Support Services Captain Burlington Police Department 171 Middlesex Turnpike Burlington, MA 01803 Dear Captain Cooney: I have received the petition of William Manka appealing the response of the Burlington 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 January 14, 2026, Mr. Manka requested the following: [1.] Bodycam from all responding officers from the vehicle pursuit that started at around 2:30 A.M. on January 14th. (Started on Blanchard Road) [2.] All written reports that are about the police vehicle pursuit that started at around 2:30 A.M. [3.] Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) report/logs, mobile data terminal messages [4.] Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) Logs, Traffic camera footage all from the police pursuit on January 14[.] The Department responded on January 20, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Manka petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/0212, 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). 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

Captain Kevin Cooney SPR26/0212 Page 2 February 4, 2026 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 20th Response In its January 20, 2026 response, the Department provided responsive records in redacted form, and cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law for redacting the “26-1335 Log.” Additionally, the Department cited Exemptions (c) and (f) for withholding the “26-1335 Arrest Report, and Body Camera Footage for Case 26-1335.” See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c), (f). The Department further explains the following: The records requested are related to the incident resulting in Commonwealth v. Ezekiel, currently docketed as 2653CR000056 at Woburn District Court, which remains pending prosecution. The criminal case has been formally charged and is proceeding through the judicial system, but has not yet been resolved. 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 Woburn District Court. See Commonwealth vs. Conor F. Ezekiel, Woburn District Court Docket No. 2653CR000056 (Feb. 2, 2026). 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).

Captain Kevin Cooney SPR26/0212 Page 3 February 4, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: William Manka