Provencher, Rebecca-Jean v. Stow, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20260284)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 20, 2026 SPR26/0284 Chief Michael Sallese Chief of Police Stow Police Department 305 Great Road Stow, MA 01775 Dear Chief Sallese: I have received the petition of Rebecca-Jean Provencher appealing the response of the Stow 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 7, 2025, Ms. Provencher requested the following: [1] The NCIC/LEAPS TAC audit report showing the date, time, user ID, terminal ID, and ORI activity for any NCIC or LEAPS entries, modifications, cancellations, or inquiries related to the following vehicles: [a] 2003 Custom Chopper . . . [b] 2018 Harley-Davidson . . . [c] 2005 Ironhorse Legend . . . [2] Any and all NCIC/LEAPS entry records, inquiry records, modification history, cancellation history, and related transaction logs for the vehicles listed above[;] [3] The NIC numbers associated with any NCIC entries for these vehicles. If no NIC numbers were assigned, please confirm this in writing[;] [4] Any reports, notes, correspondence, emails, incident reports, supplemental reports, or communications relating to the entry, non-entry, or attempted entry of these vehicles into NCIC/LEAPS[;] [5] Any communication between Stow PD and any outside agency, including CJIS, related to the NCIC entry or refusal/decision not to enter these vehicles. The Department responded on December 16, 2025. Unsatisfied by the response, Ms. Provencher petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0284, was opened as a result. 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

Chief Michael Sallese SPR26/0284 Page 2 February 20, 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. The Department’s December 16th Response In its December 16, 2025 response, the Department cited the Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) Act, as it operates through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law to withhold all requested records in their entirety. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). Current Appeal In her appeal to this office, Ms. Provencher objected to the Department’s withholding of the records. 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, 545-546 (1977).

Chief Michael Sallese SPR26/0284 Page 3 February 20, 2026 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. Criminal Offender Record Information The current definition of CORI is as follows: “Criminal offender record information,” records and data in any communicable form compiled by a Massachusetts criminal justice agency which concern an identifiable individual and relate to the nature or disposition of a criminal charge, an arrest, a pre-trial proceeding, other judicial proceedings, previous hearings conducted pursuant to section 58A of chapter 276 where the defendant was detained prior to trial or released with conditions under subsection (2) of section 58A of chapter 276, sentencing, incarceration, rehabilitation, or release. Such information shall be restricted to information recorded in criminal proceedings that are not dismissed before arraignment. Criminal offender record information shall not include evaluative information, statistical and analytical reports and files in which individuals are not directly or indirectly identifiable, or intelligence information. Criminal offender record information shall be limited to information concerning persons who have attained the age of 18 and shall not include any information concerning criminal offenses or acts of delinquency committed by any person before he attained the age of 18; provided, however, that if a person under the age of 18 was adjudicated as an adult in superior court or adjudicated as an adult after transfer of a case from a juvenile session to another trial court department, information relating to such criminal offense shall be criminal offender record information. Criminal offender record information shall not include information concerning any offenses which are not punishable by incarceration. G. L. c. 6, § 167. Additionally, in its response, the Department cited 803 C.M.R. 7.09, which provides in pertinent part: (1) CJIS shall not be accessed or used for any purpose other than an authorized criminal justice purpose.

Chief Michael Sallese SPR26/0284 Page 4 February 20, 2026 (2) CJIS shall only be accessed or used and CJIS information shall only be disseminated for authorized criminal justice purposes as defined in 803 CMR 7.02. Such purposes may include but are not limited to the following where they otherwise meet the definition of authorized criminal justice purposes provided in 803 CMR 7.02: (a) criminal investigations, including motor vehicle and driver’s checks; (b) criminal justice employment; (c) arrests or custodial purposes; (d) civilian employment or licensing purposes as authorized by law and approved by the FBI; (e) determining the status of a court case for purposes of responding to a public records request; and (f) research conducted by a CJA. 803 C.M.R. 7.09. In a February 14, 2026 communication to this office, under Exemption (a) and CORI, the Department argues the following: The records requested in this request and related appeal derive directly from, are maintained within, and would directly disclose confidential criminal justice information from CJIS systems (including NCIC and LEAPS). CJIS access and dissemination are governed and statutorily restricted by G. L. c. 6, §§ 167-178B and the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services regulations at 803 C.M.R. 7.00, along with binding CJIS participation requirements (including CJIS user/security rules). These authorities restrict CJIS information to authorized criminal justice use and prohibit dissemination to the general public. Because these laws and regulation restrict access to a defined group for defined purposes, they qualify as Exemption (a) confidentiality laws. Specifically, the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services Regulations prohibit the public dissemination of CJIS data or reports for non- criminal justice purposes, and such information must be confidentially maintained and cannot be provided absent a non-disclosure agreement approved by DCJIS or to another criminal justice agency for law enforcement purposes, as cited to in the initial response to the requestor as exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Law. DCJIS has not authorized the release of this confidential information in this instance. DCJIS requires its data to be maintained confidentiality given the relevant FBI Security Policy requirements and restricted access to the CJIS database under state regulatory requirements. The Police Department is required to comply with such legal requirements as a law enforcement agency with access to such criminal justice databases for law enforcement purposes.

Chief Michael Sallese SPR26/0284 Page 5 February 20, 2026 … Each category of records sought in this underlying request is either (i) CJIS data itself, or (ii) a record that would necessarily reveal CJIS information or confirm its existence. Disclosure is therefore explicitly prohibited by the CJIS statutes/regulations, and the Department lacks any discretion to release the records under the Public Records Law and cannot do so without violating such confidentiality requirements in place by DCJIS and the FBI. The requester asks the Department to confirm whether entries exist and whether NIC numbers were assigned. Confirming the existence or nonexistence of CJIS entries is itself dissemination of CJIS information and is prohibited for the same reason the underlying records are prohibited. In addition, the Police Department is not required to conduct research or answer questions in response to a public records request… Based on the Department’s February 14th, and where the responsive records constitute CJIS information which is not being sought for an authorized criminal justice purpose, I find the Department has met its burden to withhold records responsive to Items 1, 2, and 3 pursuant to 803 C.M.R. 7.09 as it operates through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. However, based on the Department’s response, it remains unclear how records responsive to Items 4 and 5 constitute CJIS information. Specifically, it is not clear how all the records constitute “information recorded in criminal proceedings that are not dismissed before arraignment.” See G. L. c. 6, § 167. It is also not clear from the Department’s response what records responsive to Items 4 and 5 are being withheld from disclosure. 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”). Further, it is uncertain how the records can be withheld in their entirety. See Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). The Department must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Provencher with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten 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. Ms. Provencher may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Chief Michael Sallese SPR26/0284 Page 6 February 20, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Rebecca-Jean Provencher