MA Public Records Search
← Back to Search

Bezeng, Newton v. Northborough, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20261385)

Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Public records appeal decision · Filed 04-14-2026

ClosedAppeal

SPR 20261385 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Bezeng, Newton concerning records held by Northborough, Town of - Police Department, opened 04-14-2026. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed.

Case Details

Case Number
20261385
Case Type
Appeal
Status
Closed
Requester
Bezeng, Newton
Custodian
Northborough, Town of - Police Department
Date Opened
04-14-2026
Date Closed
04-27-2026

PDF Document

Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 27, 2026 SPR26/1385 Amie Bullard Communications and Records Supervisor Northborough Police Department 211 Main Street Northborough, MA 01532 Dear Ms. Bullard: I have received the petition of Newton Bezeng appealing the response of the Northborough 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 April 6, 2026, Mr. Bezeng requested an incident report and stated, “I am requesting this report to follow up with the Northborough District Court.” The Department provided a response on April 8, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Bezeng petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1385, 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. See 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

Amie Bullard SPR26/1385 Page 2 April 27, 2026 If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. See 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 April 8th Response In its April 8, 2026 response, the Department provided a redacted record. The Department cited Exemptions (a), (c), and (f) of the Public Records Law to support its redactions. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a), (c), (f). Current Appeal In his April 13, 2026 appeal to this office, Mr. Bezeng stated, “I was provided a redacted copy of the report, which does not serve the purpose of a complete analysis by my attorney. As a result, I wish to appeal for a complete report plus the video footage relating to the assault incident.” 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 trial court’s docket and verified that criminal litigation, relating to the records at issue in Mr. Bezeng’s request, is active and ongoing in the Westborough District Court. See Commonwealth v. Aiden Johnson, (Westborough Dist. Ct., Docket No. 2667CR000498); see also Commonwealth v. James S. Gonzalez, (Westborough Dist. Ct., Docket No. 2667CR000500). In light of the pending matters, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). It should be noted 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: Newton Bezeng