Andrew McIsaac v. Bridgewater, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20170849)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records September 27, 2017 SPRl 7 /726; SPRl 7 /849 Jason Rawlins, Esq. The Law Offices of Jason M. Rawlins 555 Bedford Street, Suite 1 Bridgewater, MA 02324 Dear Attorney Rawlins: I have received your petition seeking reconsideration of my prior written determination pertaining to Mr. Mclssac's request to the Bridgewater Police Department (Department). See SPR 17 /726 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 12, 2017). Specifically, Mr. Mcissac requested "all Massachusetts Uniform Citations issued by Bridgewater Police Officers on January 1, 2017." In my June 12th determination, I found that the Department had not met its burden and ordered the Department to provide a supplemental response to Mr. Mcissac pursuant to G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c); G.L. c. 66, § lO(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3). In a letter dated July 5, 2017, you request that I reconsider my previous determination with respect to the applicability of Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 4, §7 (26)(c). Exemption (c) Exemption ( c) permits the withholding of: 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). Exemption ( c) contains two distinct and independent clauses, each requiring its own analysis. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Retirement Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 432-33 (1983). Analysis under the second clause of Exemption (c) is subjective in nature and requires a balancing of the public's right to know against the relevant privacy interests at stake. Torres v. Attorney Gen., 391 Mass. 1, 9 (1984); Attorney Gen. v. Assistant Comm'r of Real Property 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

JasonM. Rawlins, Esq. SPRl 7 /726; SPRl 7/ 849 Page 2 September 27, 2017 Dep't, 380 Mass. 623,625 (1980). Therefore, determinations must be made on a case by case basis. This clause does not protect all data relating to specifically named individuals. Rather, there are factors to consider when assessing the weight of the privacy interest at stake: (1) whether disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities; (2) whether the materials sought contain intimate details of a highly personal nature; and (3) whether the same information is available from other sources. See People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep't of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280,292 (2017). The types of personal information which the second clause of this exemption is designed to protect includes: marital status, paternity, substance abuse, government assistance, family disputes and reputation. Id. at 292 n.13; see also Doe v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 415, 427 (1988) (holding that a motor vehicle licensee has a privacy interest in disclosure of his social security number). This clause requires a balancing test which provides that where the public interest in obtaining the requested information substantially outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy, the private interest in preventing disclosure must yield. PETA , 4 77 Mass. at 291. The public has a recognized interest in knowing whether public servants are carrying out their duties in a law-abiding and efficient manner. Id. at 292. The PETA decision was issued on June 14, 2017. Therefore, my June lih determination did not contain the Exemption (c ) analysis described in PETA, nor has the Department addressed how this case applies to the records at issue. I find the Department must address the applicability of Exemption (c) to the names and addresses at issue and specifically address the analysis described in PETA . It should be noted that Mr. Mclsaac filed an appeal during the period between the June 12th determination and the Department's July 5th request for reconsideration. See SPRl 7/849. This appeal was put on hold during the pendency of my review of the request for reconsideration. This letter will also serve as the determination for SPRl 7/ 849. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Mclsaac a supplemental response prepared in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations as soon as practicable. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of this response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us.

Jason M. Rawlins, Esq. SPRl 7 /726; SPRl 7/ 849 Page 3 September 27, 2017 Sincerely, ~ Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Andrew Mclsaac