Dunn, Tim v. Milford, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20260812)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 20, 2026 SPR26/0812 John Sanchioni Deputy Chief Milford Police Department 250 Main Street Milford, MA 01757 Dear Deputy Chief Sanchioni: I have received the petition of Tim Dunn, of the Boston Herald, appealing the response of the Milford 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 March 6, 2026, Mr. Dunn requested the following: 1. The police report #21-23101 dated 9/15/2021 featuring [an identified individual]. . . . 2. The police report #21-16254 dated 6/30/21 featuring [an identified individual]. . . . The Department responded on March 5, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Dunn petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/0812, 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

Deputy Chief John Sanchioni SPR26/0812 Page 2 March 20, 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 petition, Mr. Dunn argues the following: The Boston Herald is appealing this denial for the unsealing of two police reports confirmed to have referenced [an identified individual], due to the extreme public interest requiring that information, which might otherwise remain sealed, be unsealed, in order that the public not be deprived of any information that they have a right to know. By agreeing to be Congressman Moulton’s guest at the State of the Union, an event viewed by tens of millions of people around the world, [the identified individual] has effectively acceded to whatever involvement he has in the requested police reports be a matter of public knowledge. The Department’s March 5th Response In its March 5, 2026 response, the Department cites Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law for withholding responsive records. 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, 545-46 (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.”

Deputy Chief John Sanchioni SPR26/0812 Page 3 March 20, 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. In its March 5th response, under Exemption (a), the Department states the following: Please be advised that report 21-16254-OF is NOT a public record in accordance with M.G.L. c. 4 s. 7 cl. 26 (A) as it involves a sexual assault and juveniles. Report 21-23101-OF is also NOT a public record in accordance with M.G.L. c. 4 s. 7 cl. 26 (A) as it involves juveniles. Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear which statute or statutes the Department is referring to under Exemption (a) in order to withhold the responsive records. 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”). The Department must clarify what statute it claims either specifically, or by necessary implication, permits withholding of the responsive records, and must explain with specificity how such a statute applies. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Dunn 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. Dunn 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: Tim Dunn