Guptill, G. v. Director, Office of Media Relations (SPR 20140187)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams Supervisor ofR ecords June 3, 2014 SPR14/187 Ms. G. Guptill P.O. Box 51213 Boston, MA 02205 Dear Ms. Guptill: I have received your petition appealing the response of the Boston Police Department (Department) to your request for records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2). Specifically, you requested a copy of records related to a specifically-identified incident that occurred on March 12, 2014. Department Sergeant Michael McCarthy provided you with the responsive incident report. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, an attorney on my staff was informed by Sgt. McCarthy that the incident report was redacted due to the privacy and medical rights of the subject ofthe record, as well as the privacy rights of a witness at the location. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c), (f). In responding to the remainder of your request Sgt. McCarthy informed you that the Department would provide a written transcription based upon a 911 call related to the incident. Sgt. McCarthy further explained that the transcript would be redacted, and that the Department's Office of the Legal Advisor would provide you with a written, good faith estimate for the costs associated with creating the transcript. A fee estimate was provided by the Department and paid by you. The Department provided a letter with the transcript explaining the exemptions it relied upon in redacting the transcript. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a), (c), (f); G. L. c. 111, § llOB. It is my understanding that you object to the redaction of the incident report and provision of a transcript of the 911 call. OneAshburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 · (617) 727-2832 ·Fax (617) 727-5914 www.sec.state.ma. us/ pre

Ms. G. Guptill SPR14/187 Page Two June 3, 2014 Exemption (c) Both the incident report and the 911 recording you were provided contained information that would identify the subject of the records and the medical information of the subject of the records. Exemption (c) allows a custodian of records to withhold: personnel and medical files or information; also any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy G. L. c. 4, § 7 (26)(c) The Office of the Legal Advisor indicated that the names, any identifying information of the subject and the medical information of the subject of the records was redacted from the 911 transcript and the incident report in order to protect the privacy of the individual who received medical treatment. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c ). Medical information that is of a personal nature and relates to a specifically named individual is exempt from disclosure under the first clause of Exemption (c). Brogan v. School Comm. of Westport, 401 Mass. 306, 308 (1987); Globe Newspaper Co., 388 Mass. 427, 438. Generally, medical information will always be of a sufficiently personal nature to warrant redaction. Globe Newspaper Co., 338 Mass. at 432-34. Accordingly, any medical information and identifying information ofthe subject contained in the records was properly redacted pursuant to Exemption (c). Exemption (f) The Department also redacted any information in the records that could identify any witnesses to the incident. Exemption (f) provides for the withholding of: investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of the public view by law enforcement or other investigatory officials the disclosure of which materials would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f) Exemption (f) may be used by law enforcement and investigative officials to encourage individual citizens to come forward and speak freely concerning matters under investigation. Bougas v. Chief of Police, 371 Mass. 59, 62 (1976).

Ms. G. Guptill SPR14/187 Page Three June 3, 2014 In its April 30, 2014 estimate the Department explains that it provides transcripts of 911 calls in response to public records requests to protect the rights of the parties under both the privacy and investigatory exemptions. I find that, in this instance, the redacted transcript satisfies the public's right to know while preserving the privacy and investigatory rights of both the individuals identified in the recording as well as the Department's ability to obtain information from voluntary witnesses. Please be advised that any interest you may have in the subject matter of the records does not provide any greater right of access than any other individual in the public realm. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requesters. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record, regardless of the circumstances of the requesting party. Bougas, at 62. I find that the public interest in disclosure of records related to this incident was satisfied by the Department. I further find that the Department properly redacted the incident report and 911 call transcript pursuant to Exemptions (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law. As such a review of the Department's Exemption (a) claim is not warranted. I accept that the Department used its superior knowledge in providing responsive records, redacted in a manner consistent with the Public Records Law. This administrative appeal is now closed. Supervisor of Records cc: Sgt. Michael McCarthy