Thomas Greve v. Sandwich, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20171148)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records September 5, 2017 SPR17/1148 Deputy Chief Michael Nurse Town of Sandwich Police Department 117 Route 6A Sandwich, MA 02563 Dear Deputy Chief Nurse: I have received the petition of Thomas Greve appealing the response of the Town of Sandwich Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § lOA; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, Mr. Greve requested records pertaining to an identified incident occurring on June 4, 2014. In a response, dated August 15, 2017, the Department denied Mr. Greve responsive records pursuant to Exemption (c) and Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. Objecting to this response, Mr. Greve petitioned this office. 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, § lOA(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 town 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 applic,ation of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § lO(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. The Department's response In its August 15th response to Mr. Greve, the Department explains it is withholding responsive records under Exemptions (c) and (f). 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

Deputy Chief Michael Nurse SPRl 7/1148 Page 2 September 5, 2017 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). The first clause, relevant to this determination, creates a categorical exemption for personnel and medical information that relates to an identifiable individual and is of a "personal nature." Id. at 434. Medical information that is of a personal nature and relates to a specifically named individual is exempt from disclosure. Brogan v. School Comm. of Westport, 401 Mass. 306, 308 (1987); Globe Newspaper Co., 388 Mass. at 438. 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 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 detaiis 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, 477 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.

Deputy Chief Michael Nurse SPRl 7/1148 Page 3 September 5, 2017 Exemption (f) Exemption (f), the investigatory exemption, permits 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)(±). A custodian of records generally must demonstrate a prejudice to investigative efforts in order to withhold requested records. Information relating to an ongoing investigation may be withheld if disclosure could alert suspects to the activities of investigative officials. Confidential investigative techniques may also be withheld indefinitely if disclosure is deemed to be prejudicial to future law enforcement activities. Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass 59, 62 (1976). Redactions may be appropriate where they serve to preserve the anonymity of voluntary witnesses. Antell v. Attorney Gen., 52 Mass. App. Ct. 244,248 (2001); Reinstein v. Police Comm'r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 290 n.18 (1979). Exemption (f) invites a "case-by case consideration" of whether disclosure "would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest." See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90. Burden ofs pecificity In the Department's August 15th response, you explain "[t]his case is being investigated by the Barnstable District Attorney's Office, through the Crime Prevention Unit (CP AC). The basic investigation conducted by this department ... has been determined to fall under the privacy exemption (Exemption C) and investigatory exemption (Exemption F) of the public records law." It is the Department's position that they must deny Mr. Greve's request for access to the "report and related documents." The Department does not provide sufficient detail of how Exemption (c) or Exemption (f) applies. The Department simply cites Exemptions (c) and (f) without explaining their applicability. See Flatley, 419 Mass. at 507 ( custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). Further, it is unclear how the responsive records, in their entirety, fall within an exemption claimed by the Department. See Reinstein v. Police Comm'r of Boston, 3 78 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 1 O(a). I understand a member of the Public Records Division staff provided you with a copy of the file associated with this appeal.

Deputy Chief Michael Nurse SPRl 7/1148 Page4 September 5, 2017 Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide a supplemental response to Mr. Greve, made in compliance with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten business days. 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. Sincerely, ~~ Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Thomas Greve