Reid, Kayla v. Wilbraham, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20261014)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 2, 2026 SPR26/1014 Chief Edward Lennon Chief of Police Wilbraham Police Department 2780 Boston Road Wilbraham, MA 01095 Dear Chief Lennon: I have received the petition of Kayla Reid appealing the response of the Wilbraham 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 19, 2026, Ms. Reid requested, “police report #24WIL-253-OF.” The Department responded on March 20, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. Reid petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1014, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the Department provided a supplemental response on March 30, 2026. Status of 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 Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Ms. Reid’s status will play no role in a determination as to whether the records should be disclosed or redacted under the Public Records Law. 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

Chief Edward Lennon SPR26/1014 Page 2 April 2, 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. The Department’s March 20th and March 30th Responses In its March 20, 2026 response, the Department states, “[y]ou requested police report #24WIL-253-OF on March 19, 2026. This same report was previously requested by you on August 17, 2024 and a response was emailed to you on August 21, 2025. This report was denied as it relates to an incident under MGL Chapter 41 section 97D. This report is being withheld under Exemption “A” of the Massachusetts public records law. More specifically, MGL Chapter 41 section 97D prohibits the release of this type of information from the police except in very limited circumstances.” In its March 30, 2026 supplemental response, the Department stated, “[t]he proper place for this matter to be handled is within the active litigation currently in progress consistent with Public Records Access Regulation 950 CMR 32.09. Such requests to the police department are not uncommon in these situations. Handing this through the current active litigation gives each side of the case a chance for a judicial authority to consider the request and to allow, deny, or place certain limits on disclosure.” Current Appeal In her March 20, 2026 appeal to this office, Ms. Reid contends, “[a]ccess to this report is critical, especially given the ongoing legal and safety concerns connected to the individual involved. I respectfully request clarification as to the specific legal basis for denying my request. If any portion of the report is considered sensitive or restricted, I am requesting that a redacted version be provided rather than a full denial.” Active 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:

Chief Edward Lennon SPR26/1014 Page 3 April 2, 2026 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. This office has reviewed the trial court’s docket, and verified that litigation relating to the records at issue in this appeal is active and ongoing in the Hampden Probate and Family Court. See Matthew A, Reid v. Kayla J, Reid, Docket No. HD24D0870DR. In light of the pending matter, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Please note that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Kayla Reid