Polansky, Kevin v. Worcester County District Attorney's Office (SPR 20261284)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 21, 2026 SPR26/1284 Mark Relation, Esq. Records Access Officer Worcester County District Attorney’s Office 225 Main Street, G301 Worcester, MA 01608 Dear Attorney Relation: I have received the petition of Kevin P. Polansky, Esq., of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, appealing the response of the Worcester County District Attorney’s Office (Office) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On February 11, 2026, Attorney Polansky requested the following records: Relating to RMV Internal Code 2023-0C4-002931 Crash Date: June 19, 2023 Crash Location: I-190 in Sterling, MA [An identified individual] Documents, media, and other information including but not limited to: [1] Collision analysis and reconstruction section (CARS) report; [2] Coroner’s report for …, deceased; [3] Body worn camera images and/or video and/or audio; [4] Cruiser mounted camera images and/or video and/or audio; [5] 911 calls regarding 06/19/2023 collision; [6] Law enforcement radio traffic regarding the 06/19/2023 collision; [7] Images, video, or other media of vehicles involved in, persons involved in, and/or scene of the 06/19/2023 collision; [8] Data from vehicle downloads (e.g. ‘blackbox’ data); [9] Total Station and/or similar data; and [10] Statements from witnesses and/or persons with knowledge of the 06/19/2023 collision and/or the resulting criminal investigation of [an identified individual] and/or Assabet Mack Service, Inc. 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

Mark Relation, Esq. SPR26/1284 Page 2 April 21, 2026 Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR26/0950 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 30, 2026). In my March 30th determination, I ordered the Town to provide Attorney Polansky with a written response. Subsequently, the Town responded on March 31, 2026. Unsatisfied with the response, Attorney Polansky petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1284, 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 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 Office’s March 31st Response On March 31, 2026, the Office informed Attorney Polansky that it was “… unable to satisfy [his] request …” and “… unable to locate any records related to that incident.” In support of this assertion, the Office cited G. L. c. 276, § 100C. Current Appeal In his April 8, 2026 petition to this office, Attorney Polansky objected to the withholding of responsive records under the cited statute. Exemption (a) Exemption (a), known as the statutory exemption, permits the withholding of records that are:

Mark Relation, Esq. SPR26/1284 Page 3 April 21, 2026 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, 54 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-46 (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 March 31 response, the Office relied upon G. L. c. 276, § 100C, which provides in pertinent part: In any criminal case wherein the defendant has been found not guilty by the court or jury, or a no bill has been returned by the grand jury, or a finding of no probable cause has been made by the court, the commissioner of probation shall seal said court appearance and disposition recorded in his files and the clerk and the probation officers of the courts in which the proceedings occurred or were initiated shall likewise seal the records of the proceedings in their files … The commissioner or the clerk of courts in any district or superior court or the Boston municipal court, in response to inquiries by authorized persons other than any law enforcement agency or any court, shall in the case of a sealed record report that no record exists. G. L. c. 276, § 100C. Given that the requested records are sealed under G. L. c. 276, § 100C, which limits the dissemination of these records and requires that records custodians “… report that no record exists,” the requested records are exempt from disclosure by necessary implication pursuant to the second category of Exemption (a). Therefore, the Office has met its burden in responding to this request under the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 276, § 100C; Doe v. Bd. of Registration in Med., 485 Mass. 554, 563 n.17 (2020) (holding that records sealed under G. L. c. 276, § 100C are statutorily exempt from disclosure pursuant to Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law).

Mark Relation, Esq. SPR26/1284 Page 4 April 21, 2026 Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Attorney Polansky is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Kevin P. Polansky, Esq.