Luskin, Cass v. Sandwich, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20260667)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 10, 2026 SPR26/0667 Marya Caristi Administrative Assistant Sandwich Police Department 255 Cotuit Road Sandwich, MA 02563 Dear Ms. Caristi: I have received the petition of Cass Luskin, Esq., of Cass Luskin Law, appealing the response of the Sandwich 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 February 20, 2026, Attorney Luskin requested, “any and all Sandwich PD reports involving [an identified individual]. I understand that they may have occurred at or around [an identified address] in Sandwich…” The Department provided a response on February 25, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Attorney Luskin petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0667, was opened as a result. Status of the Requestor; Reason for the Request Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Attorney Luskin status shall have no bearing on the public status of any existing responsive records. 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 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

Marya Caristi SPR26/0667 Page 2 March 10, 2026 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. Att’y 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 26th Response In its February 26, 2026 response, the Department withheld the records under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law and stated, “[a]dditionally, to the extent your request seeks materials related to a pending criminal matter, including but not limited to investigative records, reports, or potential exculpatory evidence, such materials are governed by Rule 14 of the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure. Under Rule 14, discovery is to be provided through the criminal discovery process and under the supervision of the court in the pending matter.” Current Appeal In his appeal to this office, Attorney Luskin objected to the Department withholding responsive records under Exemption (c) and stated, “I am a criminal defense attorney representing [an identified individual] in a pending criminal matter in the Edgartown District Court, bearing docket 2535CR000596. [An identified individual] is the alleged victim in [an identified individual’s] case. I have learned that [an identified individual] has been involved in various incidents in the Town of Sandwich…and that the Sandwich Police Department holds reports documenting these incidents. I have further learned that this incidents involve the property or family members of [an identified individual]. As a result, the Sandwich PD records are directly relevant to [an identified individual’s] defense, and they bear on [an identified individual’s] credibility, potential bias, motive to fabricate, and prior conduct…” Active Litigation 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation.

Marya Caristi SPR26/0667 Page 3 March 10, 2026 This office has reviewed the trial court’s docket and verified that criminal litigation, relating to the records that are the subject of this request, is active and ongoing in the Edgartown District Court. See Commonwealth v. Ricardo Antones Garcia Desouza, (Edgartown District Court Docket No. 2535CR000596. In light of the pending matter, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Please note that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Cass Luskin, Esq.