Maya Shaffer v. Chicopee, City of - Police Department (SPR 20192354)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor ofR ecords December 4, 2019 SPR19/2354 Louis Vezina Chicopee Police Department 110 Church Street Chicopee, MA O1 020 Dear Mr. Vezina: I have received the petition of Maya Shaffer of Critical MA News appealing the response of the Chicopee Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 1O A; 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1 ). Specifically, Ms. Shaffer requested "lists of all accounts blocked by any official Chicopee Police Department social media ... " including Department Facebook and Twitter accounts. The Department responded to Ms. Shaffer on November 21, 2019, withholding responsive records. Unsatisfied with this response, Ms. Shaffer petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR 19/2354, was opened as a result. Tile 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 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

Louis Vezina SPR19/2354 Page 2 December 4, 2019 Current Appeal In its November 21st response, the Department states that it is withholding responsive records pursuant to the privacy clause of Exemption ( c ). Exemption (c) Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law 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). Second clause ofE xemption (c) - privacy 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). 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 carry1ng out their duties in a law-abiding and efficient mam1er. Id. at 292.

Louis Vezina · SPR19/2354 Page 3 December 4, 2019 Referring to the list of blocked accounts, the Department states that "[t]hese people have an expectation of privacy, could have private accounts in which they do not want their identity known, and their information is not public record." Based on the Department's responses, I find it has not met its burden to withhold responsive records pursuant to Exemption (c). In particular, it is unclear how the information contained on the block lists constitute "intimate details of a highly personal nature." The Department must clarify this matter. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Shaffer with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations 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, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Maya Shaffer, Critical MA News