Burness, Alex v. Department of Correction (SPR 20260254)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 9, 2026 SPR26/0254 Kate Silvia Director of Communications Department of Correction Legal Division 70 Franklin Street, Suite 600 Boston, MA 02110-1327 Dear Ms. Silvia: I have received the petition of Alex Burness, of BoltsMag, appealing the response of the Department of Correction (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § l0A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 19, 2025, Mr. Burness requested, ... information on the 287(g) program’s use in the Massachusetts DOC [including] ... the number of incarcerated individuals who were transferred from DOC custody to ICE custody at the conclusion of their sentence for each year that data is available since this program’s inception (2007, as I understand it) in Massachusetts. I understand there may not be data available for some years, but I am requesting dating back to 2007 in order to cast the widest possible net. The Department responded on November 19, 2025 and November 24, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s responses, Mr. Burness petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0254, 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

Kate Silvia SPR26/0254 Page 2 February 9, 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 November 19th and November 24th responses In its November 19, 2025 response, the Department stated, “[y]our request has been received and is being processed in accordance with the Public Information Act. Your request was received in this office on 11/19/2025 and given the reference number R001479-111925 for tracking purposes.” In its November 24, 2025 response, the Department stated, “...any information obtained or developed as a result of the 287g MOA, including any documents created by LEA that contain information developed or obtained as a result of the 287g MOA is under the control of ICE. The MOU prohibits the Department from sharing the requested information. This request should be made to ICE: ICE/U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement https://www.ice.gov/foia ...” The Department’s November 24th response did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. The Department withheld requested records without claiming any exemption(s) in the Public Records Law that would support the withholding of the responsive records. Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be upon the custodian to prove with specificity the exemption which applies. Consequently, the Department must identify an exemption to the Public Records Law, and explain with specificity how such an exemption applies to withhold the responsive records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based”). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Burness with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Mr. Burness may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Kate Silvia SPR26/0254 Page 3 February 9, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Alex Burness