Nice, Robin v. Milford, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20261127)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 7, 2026 SPR26/1127 Deputy Chief John Sanchioni Records Access Officer Milford Police Department 250 Main Street Milford, MA 01757 Dear Deputy Chief Sanchioni: I have received the petition of Robin Nice, Esq., of McHaffey & Nice, LLC, on behalf of her client, Marcelo Gomes Da Silva, 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 19, 2025, Attorney Nice requested “a complete record of all juvenile police report records for [an identified individual.]” The Department responded on December 29, 2025 and January 7, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Department’s responses, Attorney Nice petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1127, was opened as a result. Status of the 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 G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Attorney Nice’s status shall have no bearing on the public status of any existing responsive records. 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 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 SPR26/1127 Page 2 April 7, 2026 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, Attorney Nice contends: I am writing to formally appeal the denial of our records request for police report number 21-16254-OF issued by the Milford Police Department. ... As a person who apparently is named in the report, and because the fact that this report exists and names [an identified individual] has been published by the Boston Herald…For the forgoing reasons, we respectfully request the full, unredacted version of report number 21-16254-OF. Upon review of her appeal petition, it appears Attorney Nice objects only to the withholding of police report number 21-16254-OF, and is not objecting to the redactions made under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to other records. The Department’s December 29th and January 7th Responses On December 29, 2025, the Department stated, “I am in receipt of your request for juvenile records concerning [an identified individual]. Please contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss these records as they are not public records and I need to be sure that they are not sent to underserving parties. You can also have [an identified individual] send me a request via email.” In its January 7, 2026 response, the Department provided numerous records in redacted form, and cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law for redacting the records. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). The Department also cited G. L. c. 41, § 97D, as it operates through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law, to withhold one responsive report in its entirety. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a).

Deputy Chief John Sanchioni SPR26/1127 Page 3 April 7, 2026 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, 154 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-546 (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 cited G. L. c. 41, § 97D, which provides in pertinent part: All reports of rape and sexual assault or attempts to commit such offenses, all reports of abuse perpetrated by family or household members, as defined in section 1 of chapter 209A, and all communications between police officers and victims of such offenses or abuse shall not be public reports and shall be maintained by the police departments in a manner that shall assure their confidentialiy; provided, however, that all such reports shall be accessible at all reasonable times, upon written request, to: (i) the victim, the victim’s attorney, others specifically authorized by the victim to obtain such information, prosecutors and (ii) victim-witness advocates as defined in section 1 of chapter 258B, domestic violence victims’ counselors as defined in section 20K of chapter 233, sexual assault counselors as defined in section 20J of chapter 233, if such access is necessary in the performance of their duties… G. L. c. 41, § 97D. In its response, the Department stated, “[t]here is one report (21-16254-OF) that is being withheld as it is not a public record in accordance with M.G.L. c. 4 s.7 cl. 26 (A),

Deputy Chief John Sanchioni SPR26/1127 Page 4 April 7, 2026 and c. 41 s. 97D as it involves a sexual assault.” In camera Inspection In order to facilitate a determination as to the applicability of the Department’s claims to withhold the requested record pursuant to Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law, the Department must provide this office with an un-redacted copy of the responsive record for in camera inspection. After I complete my review of the record, I will return the record to your custody and issue an opinion on the public or exempt nature of the record. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4). The authority to require the submission of records for an in camera inspection emanates from the Code of Massachusetts Regulations, 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4); see also G. L. c. 66, § 1. This office interprets the in camera inspection process to be analogous to that utilized by the judicial system. See Rock v. Massachusetts Comm’n Against Discrimination, 384 Mass. 198, 206 (1981) (administrative agency entitled deference in the interpretation of its own regulations). Records are not voluntarily submitted, but rather are submitted pursuant to an order by this office that an in camera inspection is necessary to make a proper finding. Records are submitted for the limited purpose of review. This office is not the custodian of records examined in camera, therefore, any request made to this office for records being reviewed in camera will be denied. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4)(c). This office has a long history of cooperation with governmental agencies with respect to in camera inspection. Custodians submit copies of the relevant records to this office upon a promise of confidentiality. This office does not release records reviewed in camera to anyone under any circumstances. Upon a determination of the public record status, records reviewed in camera are promptly returned to the custodian. To operate in any other fashion would seriously impede our ability to function and would certainly affect our credibility within the legal community. Please be aware, any cover letter submitted to accompany the relevant records may be subject to disclosure. Order Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide this office with an un-redacted copy of the responsive record for in camera inspection without delay. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Robin Nice, Esq.