Valentino, Gianna v. Saugus, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20261011)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 31, 2026 SPR26/1011 Christine Finocchiaro Records Access Officer Saugus Police Department 27 Hamilton Street Saugus, MA 01906 Dear Ms. Finocchiaro: I have received the petition of Gianna Valentino appealing the response of the Saugus 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 23, 2025, Ms. Valentino requested, “[p]olice log from December 16, 2025.” The Department assigned reference number 2025-1591 to this request. Prior Appeals and In Camera Determination This request was the subject of prior appeals. See SPR25/3850 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 31, 2025), SPR25/3861 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 15, 2026), SPR26/0184 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 2, 2026), and SPR26/0566 Determinations of the Supervisor of Records (March 2, 2026 and March 18, 2026). In my March 18th in camera determination, I ordered the Department to review the record, redact only where necessary, and provide a response to Ms. Valentino. Identical Request Ms. Valentino submitted an identical request to the Saugus Fire Department. See SPR26/0358 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 18, 2026). Ms. Valentino submitted an additional identical request to the Saugus Police Department on January 7, 2026, which was the subject of a separate appeal. See SPR26/0788 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 19, 2026). In my March 19th determination, I ordered the Department to clarify how the redacted information can be withheld under Exemptions (a) and (c) of the Public Records Law. The Department responded on March 20, 2026. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Valentino petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1011, was opened as a result. 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

Christine Finocchiaro SPR26/1011 Page 2 March 31, 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. 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, Ms. Valentino contends: I specifically want the SEC to address whether or not a word relating to death is exempt from disclosure in their decision. 1. I would like to narrow the scope and solely focus on the incident at 1358hrs in the call log. 2. The town appears of [sic] redacted one or two or three words, however they did not supply the exemption that legally allowed them to make the redaction, and for it to be lawful. Therefore, due to the fact, the town redacted a word, and did not cite an exemption. I am requesting an appeal on those grounds. 3. I believe the word was death or a similar word. 4. The fact that [an identified individual] was found dead at the house is public information, it appears on social media, incident reports from other agencies, it’s sites [sic] the fact he died his obituary, and his death certificate states the time of death concurrent with this incident log. I believe the town is over withholding information and does not have the legal authority to redact that word. The fact someone died is not exempt.

Christine Finocchiaro SPR26/1011 Page 3 March 31, 2026 The Department’s March 20th Response In its March 20, 2026 response, the Department provided the responsive record with reduced redactions, and stated, “[s]ee attached as requested.” Burden of Specificity Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be upon the records custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption. 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 . . .”); see also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511. See also 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). The Department did not meet its burden of demonstrating how the redacted information is exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Law. In its March 20th response, the Department provided no further explanation for the redaction which is the subject of this appeal. The Department is advised that under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be on the custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption to withhold or redact records. Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear which exemption the Department is citing to support the redaction. The Department must clarify this matter. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Valentino with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within 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. Ms. Valentino 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: Gianna Valentino