David J. Ring v. Massachusetts State Police (SPR 20182007)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor ofR ecords December 26, 2018 SPRlS/2007 Michael Halpin, Esq. Records Access Officer Massachusetts State Police 470 Worcester Road Framingham, MA 01702 Dear Attorney Halpin: I have received the petition of David Ring Jr. appealing the response of Massachusetts Department of State Police (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 1O A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, Mr. Ring originally requested "every document that is related to [his] investigation, from my correspondence with the Superintendent of the MASP, to a list of documents supplied by [Department's] office to the Brockton Detective Unit, specifically noting if a copy of a digital CD disk was transmitted to the Brockton Detective Unit and a copy of my Affidavit of Alleged Crime was sent to them." The Department provided a response to Mr. Ring that included redacted documents on October 29, 2018. Mr. Ring appealed the Department's response to this office on December 10, 2018. 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 application 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. G. L. c. 66, § 1O (b )(iv). 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

Michael Halpin, Esq. SPR18/2007 Page 2 December 26, 2018 If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 1O (b )(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. Exemption (a) Exemption (a), known as the statutory exemption, permits the withholding of records that are: specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute G. L. c. 4, § 7 (26)(a). A governmental entity may use the statutory exemption as a basis for withholding requested materials where the language of the exempting statute relied upon expressly or necessarily implies that the public's right to inspect records under the Public Records Law is restricted. See Attorney Gen. v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 54 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-46 (1977). The Department cites the Criminal Offender Record Information (CORl) Act for the reasoning behind withholding requested records. See G. L. c. 4, § 7 (26)(a). The Department has cited the CORl Act, G. L. c. 6, § 167, as applicable to withhold responsive records. Please note that an updated definition of CORI is currently in effect. CORl is defined as: [R]ecords and data in any communicable form compiled by a Massachusetts criminal justice agency which concern an identifiable individual and relate to the nature or disposition of a criminal charge, an arrest, a pre-trial proceeding, other judicial proceedings, previous hearings conducted pursuant to section 58A of chapter 276 where the defendant was detained prior to trial or released with conditions under subsection (2) of section 58A of chapter 276, sentencing, incarceration, rehabilitation, or release. Such information shall be restricted to information recorded in criminal proceedings that are not dismissed before arraignment. Criminal offender record information shall not include evaluative information, statistical and analytical reports and files in which individuals are not directly or indirectly identifiable, or intelligence information ... Criminal offender record information shall not include information concerning any offenses which are not punishable by incarceration G. L. C. 6, § 167. It is unclear how the withheld records are exempt under the CORI Act; specifically, it is uncertain how all of these records contain information compiled by a criminal justice agency and

Michael Halpin, Esq. SPR18/2007 Page 3 December 26, 2018 is restricted to "information recorded in criminal proceedings that are not dismissed before arraignment" as described above. Exemption (c) The Department redacted portions of responsive records under Exemption (c ) of the Public Records Law. 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). First clause 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 infonnation 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. Generally, medical information will be of a sufficiently personal nature to warrant exemption. Globe Newspaper Co., 338 Mass. at 432-34. There is a strong public policy in Massachusetts that favors confidentiality as to medical data about a person's body. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Chief Med. Examiner, 404 Mass. 132, 135 (1987). While it is generally held that one's right to privacy is extinguished at death, an Individual's privacy interest in his or her medical information survives death. See id. at 134. Second clause 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 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).

Michael Halpin, Esq. SPR18/2007 Page 4 December 26, 2018 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 Department's response does not address how the redacted information constitutes medical information, nor does it address the factors articulated in PETA . As a result, the Department has not established how the withheld information is exempt under Exemption ( c) . Exemption (f) Exemption (f) 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)(f). 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, 3 78 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. The Department redacted information under Exemption (f); it is unclear how the information relates to confidential investigative techniques, witness identities, or an ongoing investigation. Also, the Department did not demonstrate how the disclosure of the information "would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest" as required to withhold records under Exemption (f).

Michael Halpin, Esq. SPR18/2007 Page 5 December 26, 2018 The Department must also confirm whether it possesses any additional responsive records or identify the agency or municipality that may be in possession, custody, or control of the public record sought, if known. See G. L. c. 66, § lO(b)(ii)-(iii). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to review the requests made by Mr. Ring and provide a written response to Mr. Ring, made in accordance with the Public Records Law, its Access Regulations and this order within 10 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, fw~ ff1VJJ1J1A;f- ,,1 Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: David Ring, Jr.