Smith, Steven v. Plymouth County Sheriff's Office (SPR 20260862)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 23, 2026 SPR26/0862 Jessica L. Kenny, Esq. Deputy General Counsel Plymouth County Sheriff’s Office 26 Long Pond Road Plymouth, MA 02360 Dear Attorney Kenny: I have received the petition of Steven L. Smith appealing the response of the Plymouth County Sheriff’s Office (Office) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 8, 2026, Mr. Smith requested: [1] The Trinity food menu for cardiac diet[;] [2] The names of the transport officers that took me from Brockton Superior Com1 to PCCF on 12-16-25 at apx 1-4 pm[;] [3] The names of their direct supervisors of said transport officers[;] [4] Rules and regulations regarding the procedures to restrain inmates for com1 trips[.] Previous Appeal The requested records were the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR26/0517 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 27, 2026). In my February 27th determination, I ordered the Office to provide Mr. Smith a response to his request. The Office responded on February 2, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Office’s response, Mr. Smith petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0862, 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, § 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

Jessica L. Kenny, Esq. SPR26/0862 Page 2 March 23, 2026 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 his appeal petition, Mr. Smith contends: I mean, to provide any document, log, note, etc., that would give me the names of the transport officers (and their supervisor) on 12-16-25. … …Now what I need, is for [an identified individual] to admit these are their names. She doesn’t need to create any document [an identified individual] should have a copy…. Also, I requested records, policies, pages out a manual etc., as to the way C.O.s should restrain inmates for transport…. No Duty to Answer Questions or Create Records Please note that the duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). Under the Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). Consequently, Mr. Smith is advised that the Office is not required to answer questions in response to a records request. The Office’s February 2nd Response On February 2, 2026, the Office provided a record responsive to Item 1 of Mr. Smith’s request and stated that it withheld records pursuant to Exemptions (a) and (b) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a), (b). The Office cited the Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) Act as the basis for withholding the requested records.

Jessica L. Kenny, Esq. SPR26/0862 Page 3 March 23, 2026 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 individuals or entities to whom the records are to be provided; the statute must expressly limit access to the listed individuals or entities. Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) The current definition of CORI is as follows: “Criminal offender record information”, records and data in any communicable form compiled by a Massachusetts criminal justice agency which concern an identifiable individual and relate to the nature or disposition of a criminal charge, an arrest, a pre-trial proceeding, other judicial proceedings, previous hearings conducted pursuant to section 58A of chapter 276 where the defendant was detained prior to trial or released with conditions under subsection (2) of section 58A of chapter 276, sentencing, incarceration, rehabilitation, or release. Such information shall be restricted to information recorded in criminal proceedings that are not dismissed before arraignment. Criminal offender record information shall not include evaluative information, statistical and analytical reports and files in which individuals are not directly or indirectly identifiable, or intelligence information. Criminal offender record information shall be limited to information concerning persons who have attained the age of 18 and shall not include any information concerning criminal offenses or acts of delinquency committed by

Jessica L. Kenny, Esq. SPR26/0862 Page 4 March 23, 2026 any person before he attained the age of 18; provided, however, that if a person under the age of 18 was adjudicated as an adult in superior court or adjudicated as an adult after transfer of a case from a juvenile session to another trial court department, information relating to such criminal offense shall be criminal offender record information. Criminal offender record information shall not include information concerning any offenses which are not punishable by incarceration. G. L. c. 6, § 167. When citing CORI in its response, the Office states: [With regard to Item 2,]… the request seeks criminal offender record information (CORI) exempt from disclosure by statute. G.L. c. 4 §7 cl. Twenty-sixth (a) and c. 6 § 172. The legislature has chosen to use very broad language to define CORI: “records and data in any communicable form compiled by a criminal justice agency which concern an identifiable individual and relate to ... incarceration …” G .L. c. 6 167… G.L. c. 6 § 172 limits dissemination of such material to criminal justice agencies and such other agencies or individuals authorized by statute to receive it. An inmate’s review of his own CORI records is not covered by the public records law. [With regard to Item 3,] [t]his request is denied for the reasons as stated in the response to Request 2. Exemption (b) Exemption (b) permits the withholding of: records that are related solely to internal personnel rules and practices of the government unit, provided however, that such records shall be withheld only to the extent that proper performance of necessary government functions requires such withholding G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(b). There are no authoritative Massachusetts decisions interpreting Exemption (b). The general purpose of the cognate federal exemption is to relieve agencies of the burden of assembling and maintaining for public inspection materials in which the public cannot reasonably be expected to have an interest. See Dep’t of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 362-70 (1976) (interpreting the federal Freedom of Information Act, which provides an exemption for records which are “related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an

Jessica L. Kenny, Esq. SPR26/0862 Page 5 March 23, 2026 agency”); see also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Ret. Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 432 (1983) (Massachusetts Public Records Law modeled on federal Freedom of Information Act). In its response, the Office states: The request seeks information related solely to internal personnel rules and practices of the government unit, and proper performance of necessary government functions requires withholding of this information. G.L. c. 4 §7 cl. Twenty-sixth (b). … … Your request seeks access to the security procedures utilized in the transport of inmates at the Facility. Such information would reveal correctional security measures and techniques used for inmates in our custody. Public disclosure would permit inmates to undermine such security procedures and endanger the safety and security of the Facility. Items 2 and 3 With regard to Items 2 and 3, the Office’s response did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. Specifically, the Office has not demonstrated that the withheld record constitutes “information recorded in criminal proceedings that are not dismissed before arraignment” as defined in G. L. c. 6, § 167. The Office must clarify this matter. Item 4 With regard to Item 4, the Office has not demonstrated that the requested record is solely related to internal personnel rules and practices of the government unit. Additionally, the Office has not explained whether such record is predominantly used internally, and it is unclear how such record would significantly risk circumvention of agency regulations and statutes. Therefore, the Office has not met its burden to withhold the responsive record, in its entirety, under Exemption (b). Reinstein v.Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). Conclusion Accordingly, the Office is ordered to provide Mr. Smith 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. Smith may further appeal the substantive nature of the Office’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Jessica L. Kenny, Esq. SPR26/0862 Page 6 March 23, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Steven L. Smith