O’Brien, Michael v. Lakeville, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20260598)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 5, 2026 SPR26/0598 Kristen Campbell Records Access Officer Lakeville Police Department 323 Bedford Street Lakeville, MA 02347 Dear Ms. Campbell: I have received the petition of Michael O’Brien appealing the response of the Lakeville Police (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 15, 2026, Mr. O’Brien requested, “[c]opies of any available 911 emergency call audio recordings associated with a reported hit-and-run incident that occurred in [an identified location] during the following timeframe:” [1] Late Friday night, March 14, 2025, into[;] [2] Extremely early Saturday morning, March 16, 2025[.] The Department responded on February 4, 2026. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. O’Brien petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0598, 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 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

Kristen Campbell SPR26/0598 Page 2 March 5, 2026 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. Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. O’Brien states, “[w]hile Lakeville provided the incident report heavily redacted, and the Lakeville dispatch audio, they have not provided any material evidence of the originating call itself or unredacted reports at request of persons involved. Despite repeated clarification, the Department continues to state that the call “came from Nashua Police Department,” yet have produced no audio, CAD entry, call log, dispatch intake record, phone number record, or other documentation verifying that such a call occurred as described. No statutory exemption has been cited for withholding these materials. The only explanation provided has been that there is no caller ID, which does not address whether responsive records exist.” The Department’s February 4th Response In its February 4, 2026 response, the Department cited Exemptions (a) and (c) of the Public Record Law to redact and withhold certain records. 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

Kristen Campbell SPR26/0598 Page 3 March 5, 2026 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. The Department cited G. L. c. 41, § 97D, which provides in pertinent part as follows: 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, if such access is necessary in the performance of their duties … G. L. c. 41, § 97D. On March 2, 2026, in a telephone conversation between a staff attorney from the Public Records Division and the Department, the Department confirmed that the record was withheld pursuant to Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. In camera Inspection In order to facilitate a determination as to the applicability of the Department’s claims to withhold the records pursuant to Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law, the Department must provide this office with an un-redacted copy of the responsive record for in camera inspection. After I complete my review of the record, I will return the record to your custody and issue an opinion on the public or exempt nature of the record. 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).

Kristen Campbell SPR26/0598 Page 4 March 5, 2026 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 an un-redacted copy of the responsive record for in camera inspection without delay. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Michael O’Brien