Sara Lamontagne v. Stoughton, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20220144)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records February 1, 2022 SPR22/0144 Donna McNamara Chief of Police Records Access Officer Stoughton Police Department 26 Rose Street Stoughton, MA 02072 Dear Chief McNamara: I have received the petition of Sara Lamontagne appealing the response the Stoughton 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 29, 2021, Ms. Lamontagne requested, “all records, with no redactions, involving the death of [a named individual].” Previous Appeal This request was the subject of two previous appeals. See SPR2121/3241 Supervisor of Records Determination (December 21, 2021); SPR21/3128 Supervisor of Records Determination (December 13, 2021). In SPR21/3241, the Department was ordered to provide a supplemental response because it did not demonstrate how Exemption (c) applies to dates of birth. The Department provided a supplemental response on January 21, 2022. Unsatisfied with that supplemental response, Ms. Lamontagne petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR22/0144, 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. 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

Chief Donna McNamara SPR22/0144 Page 2 February 1, 2022 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. Purpose of request; identity of requestor Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Ms. Lamontagne’s purpose in making the request will have no bearing on the public status of any existing responsive records. The Department’s January 21st Response On January 21, 2022, the Department provided Ms. Lamontagne with a less redacted version of the report pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). The Department did not redact any dates of birth in its supplemental response. 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). Analysis under 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. Att’y Gen., 391 Mass. 1, 9 (1984); Att’y Gen. v. Assistant Comm’r of Real Prop. Dep’t, 380 Mass. 623, 625 (1980). Therefore, determinations must be made on a case by case basis. This exemption 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).

Chief Donna McNamara SPR22/0144 Page 3 February 1, 2022 The types of personal information which 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 exemption 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. In its January 21st response, the Department stated, “[t]he Department ‘believes that a family’s privacy interests under these types of circumstances considerably outweighs the public’s interest in disclosure’…The information contained in [the report] could result, if disclosed, in personal and/or familial embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. The materials sought in [the report] contain intimate details of a highly personal nature, including medical information…family disputes and reputation, social security numbers, license numbers, and dates of birth, which is all greatly private information that people go to great lengths to keep private and not have publicized. This information is not readily available from other sources and not widely known outside of [the named individual’s] family. Also, the medical information and the facts surrounding [the individual’s death] are extremely private in nature that the family would not want publicized to prevent embarrassment.” Where the Department has narrowly redacted the responsive records, I find that the Department has met its burden in responding to Ms. Lamontagne’s request. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Ms. Lamontagne 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)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Sara Lamontagne