Kirkland, Allyson v. Wrentham, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20260248)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 6, 2026 SPR26/0248 Barbara Manning Administrative Assistant Wrentham Police Department 89 South Street Wrentham, MA 02093 Dear Ms. Manning: I have received the petition of Allyson Kirkland appealing the response of the Wrentham 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 3, 2026, Ms. Kirkland requested the following related to “[an] arrest on January 3, 2026 at approximately 1:00 A.M”: [1] Dash-Cam Footage: All video and audio recordings from any and all police cruiser(s) present at the scene of the stop and arrest. This specifically includes footage of the officer(s) approaching [the] vehicle and the breaking of [the] vehicle’s window[;] [2]Body-Worn Camera (BWC) Footage: All video and audio recordings from body-worn cameras of every officer present at the scene[;] [3] Booking Room Video: All video and audio recordings from the Wrentham Police Department booking room during [an identified individual’s] intake, specifically to document the presence or absence of a breathalyzer offer and the reading of statutory rights[;] [4] Police Reports: All full copy of the official Police Report, the “Alcohol Influence Report,” and any CAD (Computer-Aided Dispatch) logs or radio transmissions related to this incident. Additionally on January 3, 2026, Ms. Kirkland requested the following: [1] CAD (Computer-Aided Dispatch) Logs: The full, unredacted dispatch activity report (call logs) for the incident[;] [2] Radio Transmission Audio: All audio recordings of radio communications between the responding officers and dispatch[;] [3] 911 Audio: Any 911 calls or citizen reports that preceded the stop. 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

Barbara Manning SPR26/0214 Page 2 February 6, 2026 The Department provided responses on January 5, January 6, January 15, January 20, January 21, and January 27, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Department’s responses, Ms. Kirkland petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0248, was opened as a result. Status of the Requestor; Reason for the Request 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, Ms. Kirkland’s status shall have no bearing on the public status of any existing responsive records. 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. Att’y 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 Responses In its January 5, 2026 response, the Department stated, “[y]our amended Public Records Request is received 1/5/26 and will be responded to within 10 business days.” In a January 5, 2026 email to the Department, Ms. Kirkland stated: Please amend my current public records requests…to include the following additional items: [1] 911 Recording: A complete audio recording of the 911 call I placed to the Wrentham Police Department (or regional dispatch) from my cell phone during

Barbara Manning SPR26/0214 Page 3 February 6, 2026 the roadside stop[;] [2] Full Police Report: A complete, unredacted copy of the official police incident report, including all supplemental officer statements and narratives[;] [3] Witness Statements: Any statements provided by third parties or civilian witnesses regarding this stop. In its January 6, 2026 response, the Department stated, “[y]our 2nd amended request is received [1]/6/20[26] and the completed request will be responded to within 10 business days from today.” In a January 13, 2026 email to the Department, Ms. Kirkland stated: Please amend my current public records requests…to include the following items: [1] The CAD Report/Dispatch Log: Showing all responding officers and the supervisor present on the scene[;] [2] The Master Evidence/Property Log: Any and all internal records showing the intake weight, pill count, or photographs for all items seized under Report #2026- I-00008[;] [3] Personnel Records ([an identified police officer]): Any sustained internal affairs complaints, disciplinary actions, or infractions regarding integrity, evidence handling, or conduct/bias regarding female subjects. Please include any records regarding statistical patterns or complaints related to his arrests of females for OUI/DUI[;] [4] Supervisory Body/Dash Cam: Any footage from the supervisor present at the scene during the seizure of [an identified individual’s] vehicle and property[;] [5] Personnel Records for the On-Scene Supervisor: Any and all sustained internal affairs complaints, disciplinary action, or infractions regarding the Ranking Officer/Supervisor present at the scene on January 3, 2026, as identified by the CAD/Dispatch log for Report #2026-I-00008. In its January 15, 2026 response, the Department stated: With respect to this 4th amended Public Record Request received January 13, 2026, the Department intends to review and provide a response within the allowed extension of 25 business days from the original receipt January 6, 2026. Unfortunately, the Department now requires additional time beyond the 10 business days allotted under the law in order to respond to this request. The Department received your original 1/3/26 email request on January 5, 2026, a 2nd 1/3/26 email request on January 5, 2026, a 3rd 1/5/26 email request on January 6, 2026, and a 4th 1/13/26 email request on January 13, 2026. The magnitude or difficulty of the request unduly burdens the other responsibilities for the department. In particular, I am the only Administrative Assistant/Records Access Officer for Wrentham Police with other duties and responsibilities. In particular, this is the 4th revision to your original request received January 5, 2026. The reasonable description requirement contemplates that a requesting party will

Barbara Manning SPR26/0214 Page 4 February 6, 2026 identify documents or categories of documents with sufficient particularity that government employees will be able to understand exactly what they are looking for and make a prompt production. As a result, the Department will gladly respond to these requests within 25 business days on or before February 10, 2026. In a January 15, 2026 email to the Department, Ms. Kirkland stated: I am formally objecting to this extension. I have a license hearing on January 27, 2026. Your department’s decision to delay the release of digital 911 audio, dashcam footage, and booking videos until after that date directly prejudices my ability to defend myself and violate my due process. Because these digital records are critical to my hearing, I am notifying the Secretary of State’s Supervisor of Records and the Wrentham Town Clerk of this conflict… In its January 15, 2026 response, the Department stated: . . . You mention a hearing January 27, 2026 and requesting the following items by January 22, 2026: [1] 911 audio[;] [2] Dash cam footage[;] [3] Booking Video[;] With respect to this modification, Wrentham Police do not have Dash Cams or Body-Worn Cameras. I am happy to produce the other requested items 911 audio and booking video, within the time frame of January 22, 2026. As stated in my response today, the extension is notice of more time needed due to multiple amended requests and the other responsibilities of this Department. The other records requested may be provided shortly after or within the 10 business day time frame. With respect to your request, I have attached: [1] Police Incident Report 2026-I-00008[;] [2] CAD (service call transcript) 2026—00598[;] [3] Attached Images 2026-I-00008[;] [4] Statutory Rights Form[;] [5] Breath Test Report Form[;] [6] Miranda[;] [7] Field Arrest[;] [8] Criminal Complaint[;] [9] Defendant’s 1st 911 Call[;] [10] Defendant’s 2nd 911 Call[;] [11] Citation 929889AD[;] [12] Citation 929891AD[.]

Barbara Manning SPR26/0214 Page 5 February 6, 2026 In a January 16, 2026 email to the Department, Ms. Kirkland stated, “[c]an I ask does Wrentham PD record officers filing reports because it appears that the report has been obfuscated because there are a lot of lies and contradictions in the report you sent…I’d like any and all internal affairs reports regarding responding officers.” In its January 20, 2026 response, the Department stated: … Under Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, do research, or create documents in response to questions. You are welcome to forward your questions regarding the incident report…to [two identified individuals]. I have obtained and attached the requested 911 Audio 2026-00598 and the Radio Transmission Audios 1-22. The Booking Video (there is no audio in the booking room) is available on DVD for pickup at Wrentham Police Department or you can reply with a mailing address as the file is too large to email. There are no Internal Affairs reports regarding the [three] responding [police officers]. Please contact Franklin Police Department regarding [an identified police officer]. In a January 21, 2026 email to the Department, Ms. Kirkland provided her mailing address and stated, “[c]an you confirm when I will receive the unredacted digital audit trail and all associated electronic data for the following breath test sequences: Instrumental Serial #: ARBF-0052 (Alcotest 9510)[;] Requested Sequences: full digital data and HH:MM:SS timestamps for Sequence #755 (Data Input Timeout) and Sequence #756 (Refusal).” In its January 21, 2026 response, the Department stated, “…I will mail the Booking Video DVD out today.” In a January 25, 2026 email to the Department, Ms. Kirkland stated the following: I received the audio recordings of the CAD transmissions, but I am unable to use these to verify the specific timestamps required for my RMV hearing this Tuesday. Please provide the printed CAD Incident Summary Report (the text-based log) for this incident. I need the version that shows the specific clock times for: [1] The initial stop/arrest[;] [2] The start of transport[;] [3] The arrival at the station[;] [4] When the call was officially cleared[;] Providing separate audio clips does not satisfy the requirement for a chronological record of the event… In a January 26, 2026 email to the Department, Ms. Kirkland stated, “[p]lease confirm the booking video has been mailed to address…If there is a tracking number, please provide it to me.”

Barbara Manning SPR26/0214 Page 6 February 6, 2026 In its January 27, 2026 response, the Department stated, “[t]he Printed CAD Incident Summary Report you requested was previously provided as an attachment Call for Service 2026- 00598 emailed to you on January 15, 2025. The Start Call Time and Close Time is at the top of the report. Please refer to the chronological times and remarks in that record.” In an additional January 27, 2026 response, the Department stated, “[a]s stated in my email January 21, 202[6], the flash drive was mailed to the address provided, regular mail, no tracking.” Current Appeal In her appeal to this office, Ms. Kirkland states, “…I requested a copy of my booking video and any related electronic surveillance from my arrest on January 2, 2026. As of today, January 26, 2026, I have received not received the booking video [sic]…” In a February 3, 2026 email to this office, the Department stated, “Ms. Kirkland was arraigned 1/5/26 in Wrentham District Court” and provided this office with the docket number. Active 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 trial court’s docket and verified that criminal litigation, relating to the records that are the subject of this request, is active and ongoing in the Wrentham District Court. See Commonwealth v. Allyson Lyn Kirkland, (Wrentham District Court Docket No. 2657CR000013 (January 5, 2026)). In light of the pending matter, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Please note that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Allyson Kirkland