Dankoff, Joshua v. Lawrence, City of - Police Department (SPR 20260357)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 18, 2026 SPR26/0357 Captain Ariel A. Montás Bureau of Administrative Services Lawrence Police Department 90 Lowell Street Lawrence, MA 01840 Dear Captain Montás: I have received the petition of Joshua Dankoff, of Citizens for Juvenile Justice, appealing the response of the Lawrence 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 August 7, 2025, Mr. Dankoff requested the following: 1. All departmental or municipal policies regarding communication and information sharing between departmental officers or employees and federal agents/agencies within the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) or the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), including but not limited to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The records request includes, but is not limited to, policies regarding: A. Fingerprint and other data sharing, B. ICE detainer requests, C. Compliance with federal immigration enforcement efforts, including guidance or policies around when communication with ICE officers is allowed, and D. Communicating with federal immigration enforcement officers. This request covers any policies that are currently in effect or that have been in effect at any point on or after January 20, 2025. 2. The three most recent communications (e.g., emails, text messages, call logs or transcripts, or otherwise) between a departmental officer or employee and a federal DHS or ICE employee. In addition, I request all records related to these communications, including, but not limited to, any records indicating that the department was made aware of the communications, discussions of their content or implications, evaluations them for compliance with departmental or other city 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 Ariel A. Montás SPR26/0357 Page 2 February 18, 2026 policies, identification or acknowledgement of any potential policy violations, and any internal responses, disciplinary actions, or follow-up measures resulting from these communications. 3. All records relating to incidents, if any, from January 20, 2025, to the day this request is responded to, in which an individual was taken from the department’s custody directly into ICE custody. For each incident, the records request includes, but is not limited to, booking and transfer records, communications with ICE or other federal agencies, internal documentation or discussion of the transfer, and internal notes, memos, or documentation referencing communication with DHS or ICE. For each request, I am not seeking identifying information, and I will accept anonymized or redacted data as necessary to protect identities. The Department responded on December 29, 2025, and assigned reference number 2025- FOIA-1359 to this request. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Dankoff petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/0357, 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. 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 29th Response In its December 29, 2025 response, a representative for the Department states the following: After reading the 2025-FOIA-1359 I can confirm we have no LPD department

Captain Ariel A. Montás SPR26/0357 Page 3 February 18, 2026 policy regarding communication and information sharing with any federal agency. We believe there is a document at City Hall covering sanctuary city responsibilities. I do not have a copy of that document. You would be best served by requesting this information from the federal agencies mentioned since we do not track the requested information. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Dankoff contends the following: We believe that LPD is referring to the municipal ordinance from 2015 entitled Lawrence Trust Act, and we find it deeply concerning that LPD now claims not to have a copy of this ordinance, especially since the Trust Act has direct bearing on LPD’s actions. We have located a copy of the Trust Act on the internet, but we restate our request that LPD provide the Trust Act, if only so that LPD can make a point of retrieving a copy from City Hall, distributing it to all of its officers, and sending us a copy. LPD also did not produce the requested records pertaining to the second section of my public records request asking for the three most recent communications between a departmental officer or employee and a federal DHS or ICE employee. LPD did not cite a reason for not producing these documents, but merely stated that I “would be best served by requesting this information from the federal agencies mentioned.” LPD did not show evidence of having attempted to search for relevant records. We request that LPD search their email system for email addresses ending with @ICE.dhs.gov, or @cbp.dhs.gov and please send the three most recent communications. LPD also did not produce any records pertaining to the third section of my public records request asking for all records relating to incidents, if any, from January 20, 2025, to the day this request is responded to, in which an individual was taken from the department’s custody directly into ICE custody. LPD did not cite a reason for not providing these records, and made no indication that they either have or have not had people go directly from their custody into ICE’s custody. We request that LPD search all records relating to these incidents including, but not limited to, booking and transfer records, communications with ICE or other federal agencies, internal documentation or discussion of the transfer, and internal notes, memos, or documentation referencing communication with DHS or ICE. Records in Existence; Possession, Custody, or Control Please be advised that the duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). Further, under the Public Records Law, a public

Captain Ariel A. Montás SPR26/0357 Page 4 February 18, 2026 employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). However, in accordance with the Public Records Law, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). With regard to Item 1 of the request, where the Department has stated that it does not possess records responsive to Item 1 of the request, and has identified the agency or municipality that may possess the records, I find the Department has met its burden in responding to Item 1 of the request. See G. L. c.66, § 10(b)(iii). With regard to Items 2 and 3, based on the information provided in Mr. Dankoff’s appeal petition, including the clarification of the email addresses for which he seeks records, I find it is unclear whether the Department possesses records responsive to Items 2 and 3 of Mr. Dankoff’s request. If the Department does possess responsive records, it must either provide the records, or cite an exemption to the Public Records Law, and explain with specificity how such an exemption applies to withhold or redact the 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. Dankoff 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. Dankoff may further appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Joshua Dankoff