Uhl, Lucas v. Milford, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20260974)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 1, 2026 SPR26/0974 John Sanchioni Deputy Chief Milford Police Department 130 Main Street Milford, MA 01757 Dear Deputy Chief Sanchioni: I have received the petition of Lucas Uhl, Esq., of the Boston Globe, 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 10, 2025, Stephanie Ebbert, of the Boston Globe, requested the following records, “… all arrest records and all traffic citations for [identified individuals].” The Department provided a response on December 17, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Attorney Uhl petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0974, 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 or redacted portion of the responsive record. If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be 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 SPR26/0974 Page 2 April 1, 2026 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 March 17th appeal, Attorney Uhl asserts, “[t]he Boston Globe is appealing the below December 17, 2025 response from the Milford Police Department on behalf of Globe Reporter Stephanie Ebbert.” The Department’s December 10th Response In its December 10, 2025 response, the Department identified the following reports as responsive to the request: 21-11456-AR; 24-24071; 24-6203-OF; 23-27886-OF; 22-30399; 22- 30131-OF; 21-23101-OF; 20-21562-AC and 21-16254-OF. The Department cited Exemptions (a) to withhold certain reports and (c) of the Public Records Law to redact other reports. 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, 54 (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. 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 response, the Department stated, “[t]he following reports/incidents are being withheld in accordance with M.G.L. c. 4 s. 7 cl. 26 (A) as they pertain to Juveniles: 21-11456- AR; 24-24071; 24-6203-OF; 23-27886-OF; 22-30399; 22-30131-OF; 21-23101-OF; and 20-

Deputy Chief John Sanchioni SPR26/0974 Page 3 April 1, 2026 21562-AC. The following report is being withheld in accordance with M.G.L. c. 4 s. 7 cl. 26 (A) as it pertains to a Sexual Assault and Juveniles: 21-16254-OF.” The Department is advised that for Exemption (a) to apply, the Department must cite a statute and said statute must either expressly state that the withheld record is not subject to disclosure under the Public Records Law, or limit dissemination of said information to a defined group or individuals or entities. The Department must clarify this. Exemption (c) Exemption (c) applies to: personnel and medical files or information and any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; provided, however, that this subclause shall not apply to records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Second Clause – Privacy Analysis under the second clause of Exemption (c) is subjective in nature and requires a balancing of the public’s right to know against the relevant privacy interests at stake. Torres v. Att’y Gen., 391 Mass. 1, 9 (1984); Att’y Gen. v. Assistant Comm’r of Real Prop. Dep’t, 380 Mass. 623, 625 (1980). Therefore, determinations must be made on a case-by-case basis. There are factors to consider when assessing the weight of the privacy interest at stake: (1) whether disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities; (2) whether the materials sought contain intimate details of a highly personal nature; and (3) whether the same information is available from other sources. See People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280, 292 (2017). The types of personal information which the second clause of this exemption is designed to protect includes: marital status, paternity, substance abuse, government assistance, family disputes and reputation. Id. at 292 n.13.; see also Doe v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 415, 427 (1988) (holding that a motor vehicle licensee has a privacy interest in disclosure of his social security number). This clause requires a balancing test which provides that where the public interest in obtaining the requested information substantially outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy, the private interest in preventing disclosure must yield. PETA, 477 Mass. at 291. The public has a recognized interest in knowing whether public servants are carrying out their duties in a law-abiding and efficient manner. Id. at 292.

Deputy Chief John Sanchioni SPR26/0974 Page 4 April 1, 2026 In its response, the Department stated “… 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.” Upon review, the Department may redact the social security number and RMV license number under Exemption (c). However, it is unclear how dates of birth are intimate details of a highly personal nature nor how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. It is additionally uncertain whether any of the information is available from other sources. See PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. Also, the Department did not provide additional information with respect to the balancing test which examines whether the public interest in obtaining the requested information outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy. Consequently, I find that the Department did not meet its burden to redact the dates of birth under Exemption (c). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Attorney Uhl 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 Uhl may 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: Lucas Uhl, Esq. Stephanie Ebbert