Disario, Robert v. Norwood, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20260899)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 26, 2026 SPR26/0899 Officer Jaime Mazzola Assistant Records Clerk Norwood Police Department 137 Nahatan Street Norwood, MA 02062 Dear Officer Mazzola: I have received the petition of Robert J. Disario, of Inside Norwood, appealing the response of the Norwood 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 9, 2026, Mr. Disario requested “Police report 26NWD-56-AR” and “Police report 26NWD-59-AR.” The Department responded on March 10, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Disario petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/0899, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the Department provided a further response on March 23, 2026. 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 or redacted portion of the responsive record. 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

Officer Jaime Mazzola SPR26/0899 Page 2 March 26, 2026 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. Disario argues, among other things, the following: [T]he report I’m requesting is a simple Operating Under the Influence (OUI) report where a caller reported an intoxicated woman attempting to driver her car. The call-log states the woman then proceeded to drive away and do donuts in a parking lot. I can’t think of a more standard police function than an OUI investigation; one that would not require specialized investigatory materials or methods. As I’ve argued in a prior appeal, it is my belief that Exception F is not intended to be used as a blanket exception to deny every report request. . . . In fact, one motivation for starting my online news source, Inside Norwood, was to showcase the great work of our line officers. Their ongoing effort toward public safety should be revered and commended in a public forum. This appeal, or any future appeal, should not be interpreted as a critique of the police department, nor their leadership. But rather an earnest initiative to seek transparency to share critical information with the public. The Department’s March 10th and March 23rd Responses In its March 10, 2026 response, the Department cites Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law for withholding the two responsive reports, and notes that the records relate to ongoing litigation. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f). In its March 23, 2026 response, the Department reiterates its claims for withholding the records. Pending 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. This office has reviewed the docket of the trial court and verified that the requested records are the subject of active and ongoing litigation in Dedham District Court. See Commonwealth v. Linda Feeney, Dedham District Court Docket No. 2654-CR-000246 (March 11, 2026); Commonwealth v. Kane Tyrique Mathis, Dedham District Court Docket No. 2654- CR-000248 (March 9, 2026).

Officer Jaime Mazzola SPR26/0899 Page 3 March 26, 2026 In light of the pending litigation, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Additionally, I decline to opine on the applicability of Exemptions (f) of the Public Records Law to the requested records. Please note that a change in the status of these actions could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Robert J. Disario