Fossa, Glenn v. Worcester, City of - Police Department (SPR 20261142)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 10, 2026 SPR26/1142 Michael Manning Records Access Officer Worcester Police Department 911 Lincoln Square Worcester, MA 01608 Dear Michael Manning: I have received the petition of Glenn Fossa, of Executive Diversified Services LLC, appealing the response of the Worcester 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 20, 2026, Mr. Fossa requested, “[a]ny and all incident reports, log entries, or investigative follow-up reports allowed on the matter of [an identified individual] (defendant) on the arrest noted in the Criminal Docket #0162CR008685 noted the date of offense(s) September 7, 2001 …” The Department responded on March 3, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Fossa petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1142, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the Department provided a supplemental response on March 30, 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 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

Michael Manning SPR26/1142 Page 2 April 10, 2026 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. 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, Mr. Fossa’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 Department’s March 3rd and March 30th Responses In its March 3, 2026 response, the Department cited Exemptions (a) and (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested documents. In its March 30, 2026 supplemental response, the Department stated, “[w]here the requestor notes in his appeal that the requested records relate to and are for use in active and on- going ligation, I would respectfully ask that the Public Records Division invoke the discretion afforded to it by 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) and decline to opine on this appeal. A copy of the Worcester County Family and Probate Court’s docket is attached.” Current Appeal In his March 29, 2026 appeal to this office, Mr. Fossa contends, “[an identified individual] is subject of a matter in the Worcester Probate and Family Court where his suitability for custodial visits is in question forward. The relevance of this case involving violence, and the details surrounding the complaint in the criminal matter will allow the court to make an informed judgement[.]” 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: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation.

Michael Manning SPR26/1142 Page 3 April 10, 2026 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 Worcester County Probate and Family Court. See Matthew S. Laramie v. Chrystina M. Soloperto, Docket No. WO25W0324WD. 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). I also decline to opine on the applicability of Exemptions (a) and (c) of the Public Records Law to the requested records. 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: Glenn Fossa