Nice, Robin v. Milford, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20260816)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 19, 2026 SPR26/0816 Richard A. Villani, Esq. Records Access Officer Milford Police Department 250 Main Street Milford, MA 01757 Dear Attorney Villani: I have received the petition of Robin Nice, Esq., of McHaffey & Nice, LLC, on behalf of her client, Marcelo Gomes Da Silva, 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 December 19, 2025, Attorney Nice requested “a complete record of all juvenile police report records for [an identified individual.]” The Department responded on December 27, 2025, December 29, 2025 and January 7, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Department’s responses, Attorney Nice petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0816, was opened as a result. Status of the Requestor 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 Nice’s 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

Richard A. Villani, Esq. SPR26/0816 Page 2 March 19, 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. 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 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 her appeal petition, Attorney Nice contends: I am writing to formally appeal the denial of our records request for police report number 25-24138-OF issued by the Milford Police Department. ... We understand that this matter involves a sealed juvenile record and recognize the importance of protecting the privacy of the parties involved. However, we respectfully request that a redacted version of the report be made available to Mr. Gomes Da Silva, with appropriate redactions to safeguard any protected information while still allowing him access to the details pertinent to his case. Upon review of her appeal petition, it appears Attorney Nice objects only to the redactions of police report number 25-24138-OF, and is not objecting to the redactions made under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to other records, or the withholding of report 21- 16254-OF. The Department’s December 27th, December 29th, and January 7th Responses On December 27, 2025, the Department stated, “[p]rocessing your request.” On December 29, 2025, the Department stated, “I am in receipt of your request for juvenile records concerning [an identified individual]. Please contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss these records as they are not public records and I need to be sure that they are not sent to underserving parties. You can also have [an identified individual] send me a request via email.” On January 7, 2026, the Department stated:

Richard A. Villani, Esq. SPR26/0816 Page 3 March 19, 2026 The packet contains the following reports:  25-24138-OF  25-33398-OF  20-21562-AC  21-23101-OF  22-30131-OF  23-27886-OF  24-6203-OF  21-11456-AR Please note that in accordance with M.G.L. c. 4 s. 7 cl. 26 (C), personal information (DOB, Social Security Number, RMV License Number, etc.) specific to individuals has been redacted. Also, in accordance with M.G.L. c. 4 s. 7 cl. 26 (A), juvenile information has been redacted. There is one report (21-16254-OF) that is being withheld as it is not a public record in accordance with M.G.L. c. 4 s.7 cl. 26 (A), and c. 41 s. 97D as it involves a sexual assault. 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.” 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

Richard A. Villani, Esq. SPR26/0816 Page 4 March 19, 2026 individuals or entities to whom the records are to be provided; the statute must expressly limit access to the listed individuals or entities. Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be upon the custodian to prove with specificity the exemption which applies. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); see also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511. The Department did not meet its burden of demonstrating how the redacted information is exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Law. Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear which statute or statutes the Department is referring to under Exemption (a) in order to redact report 25-24138-OF. 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 the redaction of the responsive records, and must explain with specificity how such a statute applies. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). Greater Right of Access to the Records It is unclear whether Attorney Nice may have a greater right of access to the responsive records outside the Public Records Law. This office encourages Attorney Nice and the Department to communicate directly to determine if there is another means affording Attorney Nice a greater right of access to the responsive records. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Attorney Nice 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. Attorney Nice 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: Robin Nice, Esq.