Jorns, Amalia v. Billerica, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20261353)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 24, 2026 SPR26/1353 Sgt. Sarah Heffernan Records Access Officer Billerica Police Department 6 Good Street Billerica, MA 01821 Dear Sgt. Heffernan: I have received the petition of Amalia W. Jorns, Esq., on behalf of her client, appealing the response of the Billerica 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 13, 2026, Attorney Jorns’ client requested “all of the records for domestic violence involving me or my children from March 2013 to present.” The Department responded on February 19, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Attorney Jorns petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1353, 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. 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

Sgt. Sarah Heffernan SPR26/1353 Page 2 April 24, 2026 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 the Requestor; Reason for the Request 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 Jorns’ and her client’s interest in obtaining the records shall have no bearing on the public status of the responsive records. It is unclear whether Attorney Jorns and her client may have a greater right of access to the responsive records outside the Public Records Law. The parties are encouraged to communicate to determine if there is another means affording a greater right of access to the responsive records. The Department’s February 19th Response In its February 19, 2026 response, the Department identified three responsive records and cited Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law in order to withhold them from disclosure, stating: …the requested records pertain to a matter that is currently the subject of a pending criminal prosecution. Disclosure of these materials at this time would likely prejudice the ongoing prosecution and interfere with effective law enforcement efforts… Once the prosecution has concluded and the matter is no longer active, you may submit a new request, at which time the records will be reviewed for release in accordance with applicable law. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Attorney Jorns argued: I represent [an identified individual] in connection with a divorce case… in Middlesex Probate and Family Court, Docket No. MI25D2772DR… [An identified individual] … has a statutory right to these records… Criminal investigations and prosecutions can take a year or more. Withholding these records from [an identified individual] has the potential to prejudice her position in her divorce case, and in the abuse prevention order case… in Lowell District Court, Docket No. 2511 RO 1097…

Sgt. Sarah Heffernan SPR26/1353 Page 3 April 24, 2026 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 Middlesex Probate and Family Court and verified that litigation, relating to the records at issue in the request, is active and ongoing. See Roberts, Brittany E. vs. Roberts, Jonathan J., (Middlesex Probate and Family Court, Docket No. MI25D2772DR). Upon a review of the docket of the Lowell District Court, it is unclear whether any additional litigation remains ongoing, however, Attorney Jorns acknowledged the pending criminal prosecution and noted in the appeal petition that her client has also brought forth an abuse prevention order case in Lowell District Court. In light of the pending litigation matter(s), 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 records. It should be noted that a change in the status of these actions could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Amalia W. Jorns, Esq. Margaret DiSarcina