Vaccaro, Nick v. Canton, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20260497)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 25, 2026 SPR26/0497 Patricia A. Sherrill Deputy Chief of Administration Canton Police Department 1492 Washington Street Canton, MA 02021 Dear Deputy Chief Sherrill: I have received the petition of Nick Vaccaro appealing the response of the Canton 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 30, 2025, Mr. Vaccaro requested the following: 1. Missing or Found Dog Records All records, including but not limited to reports, incident reports, CAD entries, RMS entries, call-for-service records, notes, memoranda, or logs, relating to any report or notification of a missing or found dog between 12:00 a.m. on January 28, 2022 and 11:59 p.m. on January 29, 2022. 2. Call Logs, Audio, and Dispatch Records All call logs, CAD records, phone records, audio recordings, transcripts, or related documentation for any incoming or outgoing calls concerning a missing or found dog during the same time period, including but not limited to calls made via 911, non-emergency lines, administrative lines, or internal transfers. This includes records identifying the date and time of each call and the employee or officer who answered or handled the call. 3. Surveillance and Security Footage All surveillance or security camera footage, in both native format and a commonly used viewing format, depicting [a named individual] arriving at and/or departing from the Canton Police Department on or about January 28, 2022, including footage from lobby, front desk, exterior entrance, parking lot, or sally port cameras. 4. Records Concerning [a named individual]’s Presence 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

Deputy Chief Patricia A. Sherrill SPR26/0497 Page 2 February 25, 2026 All records, including but not limited to reports, CAD/RMS entries, visitor logs, emails, texts, notes, internal communications, or memoranda referencing or documenting [a named individual] being present at the Canton Police Department between 12:00 a.m. on January 28, 2022 and February 2, 2022, not otherwise produced. 5. Animal Control Records All records reflecting communication or coordination between the Canton Police Department and Canton Animal Control regarding a missing or found dog on or about January 28, 2022. 6. Retention, Deletion, or Destruction Records If any responsive records no longer exist, please provide all retention schedules, destruction logs, deletion policies, or other documentation explaining when such records were destroyed, deleted, overwritten, or otherwise rendered unavailable. The Department responded on January 14, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Vaccaro petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/0497, 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 January 14th Response In its January 14, 2026 response, the Department provides an “audio log” in redacted form, and cites G. L. c. 66, § 10 for redacting the record. Additionally, the Department cites Exemptions (b) and (n) of the Public Records Law for withholding other records. See G. L. c. 4,

Deputy Chief Patricia A. Sherrill SPR26/0497 Page 3 February 25, 2026 § 7(26)(b), (n). 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, 545-46 (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. In its January 14th response, the Department cites G. L. c. 66, § 10, and argues the following: As to the remainder of the materials sought by your request, the only responsive records in Town’s possession, custody and control is an audio log regarding a reported missing dog. Please be advised that limited portions of the audio log have been redacted to omit the names of private individual(s), personal residential addresses, and personal phone numbers, as the disclosure of such records would constitute an unnecessary invasion of privacy and in violation of G.L. c. 66 § 10. The Department is advised that G. L. c. 66, § 10 governs responses to public records request, fees that may be assessed by records custodians, and extensions of time to provide records. This statute does not specifically, nor by implication, exempt any particular records from disclosure; therefore, this statute does not operate under Exemption (a) for the withholding or redaction of records or information responsive to this request.

Deputy Chief Patricia A. Sherrill SPR26/0497 Page 4 February 25, 2026 Exemption (b) Exemption (b) permits the withholding of records that are: Related solely to internal personnel rules and practices of the government unit, provided however, that such records shall be withheld only to the extent that proper performance of necessary governmental functions requires such withholding G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(b). There are no authoritative Massachusetts decisions interpreting Exemption (b). The general purpose of the cognate federal exemption is to relieve agencies of the burden of assembling and maintaining for public inspection materials in which the public cannot reasonably be expected to have an interest. See Dep’t of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 362-70 (1976) (interpreting the federal Freedom of Information Act, which provides an exemption for records which are “related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency”); see also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Ret. Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 432 (1983) (Massachusetts Public Records Law modeled on federal Freedom of Information Act). The courts have interpreted the federal exemption to allow withholding of materials that, if released, could cause agency rules or regulations to be circumvented. See Fiumara v. Higgins, 572 F. Supp. 1093, 1102 (1983) (internal codes are exempt where disclosure may enable outsiders to circumvent agency functions). The analysis employed by the federal courts requires a two-pronged test. Material is exempt if it is predominantly used internally and if disclosed would significantly risk circumvention of agency regulations and statutes. See Marrera v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 622 F. Supp. 51, 55 (D.D.C. 1985) (Bureau of Prisons access and identity codes were properly withheld as materials in which the public would have no legitimate interest or which would compromise security if disclosed). In its January 14th response, the Department argues the following under Exemption (b): Exemption (b) - Internal Personnel Rules & Practices As evident in the SPR decision on this very matter, SPR21/0672, this exemption is applicable as the requested footage relates solely to the internal personnel practices of our police department. The requested footage shows internal operations of the department such as shift changes, staffing patterns, and officer movements. Releasing it could unduly expose how our department functions day- to-day — things like when officers are coming/going, where unmarked cars are parked, or how long vehicles are idle, to name a few. That kind of information can be misused and disclosing it could interfere with our agency’s ability to operate securely and effectively. In this case, the Department has not demonstrated that the records are solely related to internal personnel rules and practices of the government unit. Additionally, it is unclear how

Deputy Chief Patricia A. Sherrill SPR26/0497 Page 5 February 25, 2026 such records would significantly risk circumvention of agency regulations and statutes. Therefore, the Department has not met its burden to withhold the responsive records under Exemption (b). Exemption (n) Exemption (n) applies to: records, including, but not limited to, blueprints, plans, policies, procedures and schematic drawings, which relate to internal layout and structural elements, security measures, emergency preparedness, threat or vulnerability assessments, or any other records relating to the security or safety of persons or buildings, structures, facilities, utilities, transportation, cyber security or other infrastructure located within the commonwealth, the disclosure of which, in the reasonable judgment of the record custodian, subject to review by the supervisor of public records under subsection (c) of section 10 of chapter 66, is likely to jeopardize public safety or cyber security. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(n). Exemption (n) allows for the withholding of certain records which if released would jeopardize public safety. The first prong of Exemption (n) examines “whether, and to what degree, the record sought resembles the records listed as examples in the statute;” specifically, the “inquiry is whether, and to what degree, the record is one a terrorist ‘would find useful to maximize damage.’” People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280, 289-90 (2017). The second prong of Exemption (n) examines “the factual and contextual support for the proposition that disclosure of the record is ‘likely to jeopardize public safety.’” Id. at 289-90. The PETA decision further provides that “[b]ecause the records custodian must exercise ‘reasonable judgment’ in making that determination, the primary focus on review is whether the custodian has provided sufficient factual heft for the supervisor of public records or the reviewing court to conclude that a reasonable person would agree with the custodian’s determination given the context of the particular case.” Id. PETA also provides that “[t]hese two prongs of exemption (n) must be analyzed together, because there is an inverse correlation between them. That is, the more the record sought resembles the records enumerated in exemption (n), the lower the custodian’s burden in demonstrating ‘reasonable judgment’ and vice versa.” PETA, at 290. In its January 14th response, the Department argues the following under Exemption (n): Exemption (n) - Security & Public Safety This exemption is applicable because the footage requested maps out our building’s security setup — entrances, camera angles, surveillance blind spots,

Deputy Chief Patricia A. Sherrill SPR26/0497 Page 6 February 25, 2026 scope of the camera’s range and capability which is not readily apparent upon looking at the camera, etc. It is this kind of information that could be exploited by someone trying to avoid detection or target the facility and use the information to maximize damage. The law allows me to withhold these types of records as it is my reasonable judgment, evident upon the facts stated above, that by releasing them could jeopardize the overall safety of our building and therefore likely to jeopardize public safety. The public’s interest in knowing this information is significantly outweighed by the real and obvious threat that such a disclosure would be to the security and safety of our law enforcement personnel and the general public. Being mindful of the climate our agency has been living in for the past two years, we have received direct and vailed threats of physical harm to our officers and our department. Releasing records related to our security measures would be furnishing evil doers with a road map on how to attack our department. Such information directs attackers to points that may not be secured and/or vulnerable within our department. As supported by the SJC in the PET A case, withholding this footage prevents someone from using this information to “maximize damage” to our agency and the public. This footage fits that concern. Consequently, the Town will not produce any records or materials in response to your third request as such materials are not a public record. Although portions of the video footage may fall under Exemption (n), it is unclear how the footage can be withheld in its entirety. The Department must explain whether the footage can be redacted so that segregable portions can be provided. See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90 (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Any nonexempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Vaccaro 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. Vaccaro 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: Nick Vaccaro