Sampath, Namu v. East Longmeadow, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20260287)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 12, 2026 SPR26/0287 Lori Hall Records Access Officer East Longmeadow Police Department 160 Somers Road East Longmeadow, MA 01028 Dear Ms. Hall: I have received the petition of Namu Sampath, of The Republican/MassLive, appealing the response of the East Longmeadow 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 22, 2026, S. Sampath requested “[t]he body camera footage of [a named officer] responding to a report of a man, [a named individual], operating a vehicle (dark colored Dodge Ram) under the influence on Dec. 24, 2025 at around 6:25 p.m.” The Department responded on January 23, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. Sampath petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/0287, 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). 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. 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

Lori Hall SPR26/0287 Page 2 February 12, 2026 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 23rd Response In its January 23, 2026 response, the Department cites the Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) statute, as it operates through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law, for withholding the responsive record. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a); G. L. c. 6, § 167. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Sampath states the following: A police report I obtained from the Palmer District Court related to [the named individual’s] Dec. 24, 2025 arrest said his vehicle was the subject of multiple 911 calls on or in the days leading up to his arrest, including that he was allegedly “tailgating other vehicles, attempting to pass in no-passing zones, and running a red light,” the police report said. Police allegedly found “a brown paper bag ... containing two closed cans of Michelob Ultra from a six-pack with the plastic ring still around the two cans, and two Jack Daniels nips” in [the individual]’s vehicle when they searched it. The public deserves the body camera footage with more details of that night. 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 Palmer District Court. See Commonwealth v. Sean C. Doyle, (Palmer District Court Docket No. 2543CR001908) (January 22, 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 Exemption (a) and CORI to the requested record. Please note that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b).

Lori Hall SPR26/0287 Page 3 February 12, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Namu Sampath