DaSilva, Jose v. Mansfield, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20260742)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 16, 2026 SPR26/0742 Matthew Todesco Records Access Officer Mansfield Police Department 500A East Street Mansfield, MA 02048 Dear Mr. Todesco: I have received the petition of Jose R. DaSilva appealing the response of the Mansfield 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 5, 2026, Mr. DaSilva requested “[a] police report from incident that occurred on January 18, 2026, at [an identified address.]” Previous Appeal The requested records were the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR26/0715 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 3, 2026). In my March 3rd determination, I learned the Department provided Mr. DaSilva with a supplemental response to his request. The Department responded on February 6, 2026 and March 3, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Department’s responses, Mr. DaSilva petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0742, 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 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

Matthew Todesco SPR26/0742 Page 2 March 16, 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. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. DaSilva states, “I am writing to appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s March 03, 2026 denial response. I request that the administrative appeal be reopened.” The Department’s February 6th and March 3rd Responses On February 6, 2026, the Department stated that it withheld certain records pursuant to Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). The Department cited G. L. c. 41, § 97D as the basis for withholding the requested records. On March 3, 2026, the Department further clarified how certain records may be withheld pursuant to G. L. c. 41, § 97D as it operates through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). 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, 545-546 (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.”

Matthew Todesco SPR26/0742 Page 3 March 16, 2026 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. The Department cites G. L. c. 41, § 97D, which provides in relevant 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 ..., G. L. c. 41, § 97D. In its February 6th response, the Department stated, “[w]ith respect to your request, the Department intends to withhold the following record: 26MAS-63-OF” Later, in its March 3rd response, the Department stated, “[a]s we discussed in the lobby this is a domestic situation ...” The Department’s responses did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. Specifically, it is not clear how the withheld records constitute the type of records contemplated under G. L. c. 41, § 97D. The Department must clarify this. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. DaSilva 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. DaSilva may further appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Matthew Todesco SPR26/0742 Page 4 March 16, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jose R. DaSilva