Jim Lehane v. Sandwich, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20213078)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records December 6, 2021 SPR21/3078 Marya Caristi Administrative Assistant Sandwich Police Department 255 Cotuit Road Sandwich, MA 02563 Dear Ms. Caristi: I have received the petition of James Lehane appealing the response of the Sandwich Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 2, 2021, Mr. Lehane requested a police report. Previous appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR21/2968 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 10, 2021); SPR21/2999 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 17, 2021). The Department provided a response on November 16, 2021. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Lehane petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR21/3078, was opened as a result. 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, § 10A(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, § 10(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. 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

Marya Caristi SPR21/3078 Page 2 December 6, 2021 If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. The Department’s November 16th Response In its November 16, 2021 response, the Department stated, “[t]he redactions in question were made in accordance with Massachusetts Public Record Law Exemption (c).” Exemption (c) Exemption (c) permits the withholding of: personnel and medical files or information and any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; provided, however, that this subclause shall not apply to records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation. 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. Brogan v. School Comm. of Westport, 401 Mass. 306, 308 (1987); Globe Newspaper Co., 388 Mass. at 438. 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). In the November 16th response, the Department explained, “[t]hese redacted paragraphs recount the conversations between our officers, the juvenile and his family. They refer to medical diagnosis, current and ongoing treatment protocols, medications and medical history. In addition, Mr. Lehane requested and was afforded two separate meetings. One with department’s SRO and school officials on November 2, 2021 and a second with two members of our command staff on November 9, 2021. In those meetings, Mr. Lehane stated he felt that he should have been notified of the outcome of the incident. It has been explained that a reporting party has no greater right to that information than any other member of the community. Mr. Lehane has requested ‘the full report associated with my son’ and has received any and all information documenting his involvement, as requested.” In addition, on November 16th, the Department further explained, “[t]he redacted information is not pertinent to [Mr. Lehane] in any way. The outcome of this incident was an established action plan for the juvenile to continue to receive mental health services through his care providers and the school department.” The Department also provided a supplemental response on November 23. 2021. The Department stated the “[r]eport 21-1364-OF is [identified officer’s] summation of this department’s initial response to the incident. The redacted paragraphs recount the conversations

Marya Caristi SPR21/3078 Page 3 December 6, 2021 between the officers on scene, the juvenile and his family. They refer to medical diagnosis, current and ongoing treatment protocols, medications and medical history. Command staff and the School Resource Officer were looped in after the immediate threat had been addressed. Their subsequent involvement is not documented in the incident report.” The Department has met its burden in responding to this request for records. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Lehane is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: James Lehane