Courtney Wilhauck v. Mansfield, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20220686)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records April 5, 2022 SPR22/0686 Matthew Todesco Records Access Officer Mansfield Police Department 500 East Street Mansfield, MA 02048 Dear Mr. Todesco: I have received the petition of Courtney Willhauck appealing the response of the Mansfield Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On February 25, 2022, Ms. Willhauck requested certain accident and police reports. The Department responded on March 10, 2022. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. Willhauck petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR22/0686, 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 agency or municipality 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

Matthew Todesco SPR22/0686 Page 2 April 5, 2022 The Department’s March 10th response In its response, the Department produced the responsive report with redactions pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Exemption (c) Exemption (c) applies to: 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). Massachusetts courts have found that “core categories of personnel information that are ‘useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee’” may be withheld from disclosure. Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corp. v. Chief of Police of Worcester, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 5 (2003). For example, “employment applications, employee work evaluations, disciplinary documentation, and promotion, demotion, or termination information pertaining to a particular employee,” may be withheld pursuant to Exemption (c). Wakefield Teachers Ass’n v. School Comm., 431 Mass. 792, 798 (2000). The courts have also discussed specific categories of records that may be redacted under Exemption (c). See Globe Newspaper Co. v. Exec. Office of Admin. and Finance, Suffolk Sup. No. 11-01184-A (June 14, 2013). 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. 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. 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). When analyzing a privacy claim, there is 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 response, the Department claimed, “[t]he records requested contain information which, if disclosed, would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Such

Matthew Todesco SPR22/0686 Page 3 April 5, 2022 information contains intimate details and the privacy interests involved outweigh the public interests in the disclosure of that information. Specifically, the dissemination of a person’s personal identifying information in combination with their name, date of birth, and address. As a result, such information must be redacted under the law.” Current appeal In her hand filed appeal, Ms. Willhauck advised that the response/redactions had incorrect facts and errors. Upon review, I find that the basis of Ms. Willhauck’s appeal is unclear. Further, the redacted reports were not attached to the appeal. Ms. Willhauck is reminded that all petitions for appeal “shall specifically describe the nature of the requestor’s objections to the response or failure to timely respond.” 950 C.M.R. 32.08(l)(f). Conclusion Accordingly, I am unable to issue a determination at this time. Ms. Willhauck may wish to clarify her specific objections to the Department’s response. Ms. Willhauck is also reminded that an appeal to this office must be filed within ninety calendar days of the date of the request letter, or within ninety calendar days of the date of a written response from the record custodian. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1)(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1)(e). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Courtney Willhauck