Ferguson, Grace v. Fall River, City of - Police Department (SPR 20260429)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 19, 2026 SPR26/0429 Amanda Matton Staff Services Fall River Police Department 685 Pleasant Street Fall River, MA 02721 Dear Ms. Matton: I have received the petition of Grace Ferguson, of the New Bedford Light, appealing the response of the Fall River 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 November 10, 2025, Ms. Ferguson requested “all police incident reports for … Highland Avenue in Fall River since November 10, 2023.” It is my understanding that the Department assigned the request reference number P008864-111025. Previous Appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR25/3497 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 10, 2025) and SPR26/0138 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 29, 2026). In my January 29th determination, I ordered the Department to explain with specificity how Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law applies to the redacted and withheld responsive police reports. The Department responded on February 3, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. Ferguson petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0429, 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

Amanda Matton SPR26/0429 Page 2 February 19, 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 February 3rd Response In its February 3, 2026 response, the Department provided a link to the responsive “revised reports,” redacted pursuant to Exemptions (a) and (c) of the Public Records Law, as well as corresponding “call notes.” The Department also listed seven identified reports withheld entirely under Exemption (a). Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Ferguson clarified that her appeal pertains only to the seven withheld reports, and stated that she is not contesting the Department’s redactions under Exemption (c) to the records that have been produced. In support of her appeal, Ms. Ferguson argued the following: In its latest response, the department … states that it is withholding seven police reports pursuant to exemption (a).… However, the department does not cite a specific statute or explain the applicability of this exemption to the withheld records… [T]his request has already gone through two appeals in which the department was ordered to correct similar shortcomings in its responses. Even after twice being ordered to cite specific statutes for withholding records purportedly exempt from disclosure under exemption (a), the department has continued to repeatedly cite this exemption to withhold records without referring to any particular statute. In a telephone conversation with this office on February 12, 2026, the Department clarified that the withheld reports fall under G. L. c. 41, § 97D, which the Department had previously cited to redact a corresponding call log in response to this request. Exemption (a) Exemption (a), known as the statutory exemption, permits the withholding of records that are:

Amanda Matton SPR26/0429 Page 3 February 19, 2026 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, 54 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-46 (1977). 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. Further, G. L. c. 41, § 97D provides in pertinent part: All reports of rape and sexual assault or attempts to commit such offenses, all reports of abuse perpetrated by family or household members, as defined in section 1 of chapter 209A, and all communications between police officers and victims of such offenses or abuse shall not be public reports and shall be maintained by the police departments in a manner that shall assure their confidentiality; provided, however, that all such reports shall be accessible at all reasonable times, upon written request, to: (i) the victim, the victim’s attorney, others specifically authorized by the victim to obtain such information, prosecutors and (ii) victim-witness advocates as defined in section 1 of chapter 258B, domestic violence victims’ counselors as defined in section 20K of chapter 233, sexual assault counselors as defined in section 20J of chapter 233... G. L. c. 41, § 97D. Under Exemption (a), the Department noted: The [seven identified reports] are exempt from release due [to] the type of report they are. Exemption (a) allows withholding of records that are “specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute.” Such a record “shall be kept confidential.” Such report shall be accessible at all reasonable times, upon requests to the victim or the victim’s attorney, others specifically authorized by the victim to obtain such information.

Amanda Matton SPR26/0429 Page 4 February 19, 2026 In Camera Inspection In order to facilitate a determination as to the applicability of the Department’s claims to withhold the responsive records pursuant to Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law, the Department must provide this office with un-redacted copies of the responsive records for in camera inspection. After I complete my review of the records, I will return them to your custody and issue an opinion on the public or exempt nature of the records. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4). The authority to require the submission of records for an in camera inspection emanates from the Code of Massachusetts Regulations, 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4); see also G. L. c. 66, § 1. This office interprets the in camera inspection process to be analogous to that utilized by the judicial system. See Rock v. Massachusetts Comm’n Against Discrimination, 384 Mass. 198, 206 (1981) (administrative agency entitled deference in the interpretation of its own regulations). Records are not voluntarily submitted, but rather are submitted pursuant to an order by this office that an in camera inspection is necessary to make a proper finding. Records are submitted for the limited purpose of review. This office is not the custodian of records examined in camera, therefore, any request made to this office for records being reviewed in camera will be denied. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4)(c). This office has a long history of cooperation with governmental agencies with respect to in camera inspection. Custodians submit copies of the relevant records to this office upon a promise of confidentiality. This office does not release records reviewed in camera to anyone under any circumstances. Upon a determination of the public record status, records reviewed in camera are promptly returned to the custodian. To operate in any other fashion would seriously impede our ability to function and would certainly affect our credibility within the legal community. Please be aware, any cover letter submitted to accompany the relevant records may be subject to disclosure. Order Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide this office with un-redacted copies of the responsive records for in camera inspection without delay. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Grace Ferguson