Disario, Robert v. Norwood, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20261061)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 31, 2026 SPR26/1061 Officer Kevin Riley Records Access Officer Norwood Police Department 137 Nahatan Street Norwood, MA 02062 Dear Officer Riley: 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 February 10, 2026, Mr. Disario requested “Police report 26-NWD-97-OF.” Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR26/0652 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 12, 2026). In my March 12th determination, I ordered the Department to clarify its claims to withhold the responsive report under Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. The Department responded on March 23, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Disario petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1061, 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 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 Kevin Riley SPR26/1061 Page 2 March 31, 2026 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 23rd Response In its March 23, 2026 response, the Department again cited Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law and stated: The record requested is the subject matter of a dispute in active litigation, and therefore falls within a recognized basis for appeal denial. Furthermore, an inquiry with Dedham District Court, revealed the record requested is in fact in active litigation. (Docket #2654CR000263 Scheduled For Arraignment on 04-16- 26)… Exemption F permits the withholding of investigatory material where disclosure would likely prejudice effective law enforcement. This statement is applicable in this matter because the requested record pertains to a pending criminal matter. The release of this record could interfere with integrity of the prosecution, including impacts of witness testimony and the defendant’s right to a fair trial… [O]nce this matter has been litigated through the courts, the requested record could be released according the Massachusetts Public Records Law. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Disario argued, “…the release of information under pending litigation is not as protected as [the Department] claims… The Norwood Police Records Division must comply with FOIA law just as every other law enforcement agency in the Commonwealth. Exception F is not intended to be used as a blanket exception to deny every report request.” 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 record is related to active and ongoing litigation in Dedham District Court. See Commonwealth v. Kuzdeba, (Dedham District Court Docket No. 2654CR000263).

Officer Kevin Riley SPR26/1061 Page 3 March 31, 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 Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law to the requested record. 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: Robert J. Disario