Mohammed, Yousef v. University of Massachusetts - Lowell (SPR 20260570)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 4, 2026 SPR26/0570 Shelly Thrasher Assistant to the Chief of Police University of Massachusetts - Lowell University Crossing 220 Pawtucket Street, Suite 170 Lowell, MA 01854 Dear Ms. Thrasher: I have received the petition of Yousuf Mohammed appealing the response of the University of Massachusetts - Lowell (University) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 30, 2026, Mr. Mohammed requested “any camera footage available from 7:45AM - 7:55AM on 1/30/2026 that includes the view of the intersection of Pawtucket Street and University Avenue, and any views of University Avenue from Pawtucket St to Riverside St.” The University responded on February 12, 2026. Unsatisfied with the University’s response, Mr. Mohammed petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/0570, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the University provided a further response to Mr. Mohammed and this office on February 23, 2026, and in an email on the same day, Mr. Mohammed reiterated his objections to the University’s response. 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 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

Shelly Thrasher SPR26/0570 Page 2 March 4, 2026 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 University’s February 12th and February 23rd Responses In its February 12, 2026 response, the University cites Exemption (a), Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), and Exemption (n) of the Public Records Law for withholding responsive records. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a), (n). In its February 23, 2026 response, the University further states the following: The University of Massachusetts Lowell Police Department (UMLPD) offered the requester an opportunity to review the responsive record at a mutually convenient time and date, consistent with the exemptions cited in our original response. UMLPD remains committed to responding in accordance with the Massachusetts Public Records Law[.] 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

Shelly Thrasher SPR26/0570 Page 3 March 4, 2026 individuals or entities to whom the records are to be provided; the statute must expressly limit access to the listed individuals or entities. FERPA The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) is a federal statute and provides in pertinent part: No funds shall be made available under any applicable program to any educational agency or institution which has a policy or practice of permitting the release of education records (or personally identifiable information contained therein other than directory information, as defined in paragraph (5) of subsection (a)) of students without the written consent of their parents to any individual, agency, or organization, other than to the following . . . 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b)(1). The statute goes on to list seven categories of individuals, agencies, and organizations to which “education records” may be released. In addition, FERPA provides the following limitation on the definition of “education records”: The term “education records” does not include— . . . records maintained by a law enforcement unit of the educational agency or institution that were created by that law enforcement unit for the purpose of law enforcement. 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(a)(4)(B)(ii). In its February 12th response, under Exemption (a) and FERPA, the University argues the following: Exemption (a) - Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 4, Section 7(26)(a) exempts records that are specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute. In this case, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) prohibits the release of education records, including video footage that may contain student-identifiable information, without proper consent. Based on the University’s response, it is unclear how the responsive records constitute “education records” as defined under FERPA. The University must clarify this.

Shelly Thrasher SPR26/0570 Page 4 March 4, 2026 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 February 12th response, under Exemption (n), the University argues the following: Exemption (n) - Section 7(26)(n) exempts records relating to the security or safety of persons or buildings. This includes surveillance video that could disclose security measures, surveillance angles, or emergency response procedures. Based on the University’s response, it is unclear how the requested records resemble the records listed as examples in the statute. See PETA, 477 Mass. at 289. Particularly, it is not clear how the records resemble “blueprints, plans, policies, procedures and schematic drawings” that

Shelly Thrasher SPR26/0570 Page 5 March 4, 2026 relate to security measures. It is also uncertain how the records are the type that “a terrorist would find useful to maximize damage” as required under Exemption (n). Where the requested records bear a minimal resemblance to the categories listed in Exemption (n), the burden on the custodian to prove its “reasonable judgment” that disclosure is likely to jeopardize public safety is greatest. See id. at 290 (noting “inverse correlation” between the two prongs of Exemption (n) inquiry). Further, the University did not provide factual heft to support the withholding of the requested records in their entirety pursuant to Exemption (n). Specifically, the University has not sufficiently explained how disclosure of the records is likely to jeopardize public safety or cyber security. See PETA, at 289-90. The University must clarify these matters. Additionally, it is unclear from the University’s response, which specific records the University intends to withhold. The University must identify the records, categories of records, or portions of records it intends to withhold under Exemptions (a) and (n). 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”). It is further uncertain why the records must be withheld in their entirety. The University must explain whether the records 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 non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). Conclusion Accordingly, the University is ordered to provide Mr. Mohammed 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. Mohammed may further appeal the substantive nature of the University’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Yousuf Mohammed