Mira Belenkiy v. Newburyport, City of - Police Department (SPR 20222448)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 10, 2022 SPR22/2448 Richard J. Siemasko, Esq. Senior Lieutenant Newburyport Police Department 4 Green Street Newburyport, MA 01950 Dear Attorney Siemasko: I have received the petition of Mira Belenkiy appealing the response of the Newburyport Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On October 26, 2022, Ms. Belenkiy requested “…the phone audio recordings of the conversations between the Newburyport school and the Newburyport police department on [two specified dates].” The Department provided a response on October 27, 2022. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. Belenkiy petitioned this office, and appeal SPR22/2448 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

Richard J. Siemasko, Esq. SPR22/2448 Page 2 November 10, 2022 The Department’s October 27th response In its October 27, 2022 response, the Department stated that it was withholding the records in their entirety under exemptions (a), (c), and (f) of the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a), (c), (f). 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 Att’y Gen. v. Collector of Lynn, 3 77 Mass. 151, 54 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-46 (1977). This exemption creates two categories of exempt records. The first category includes records that are specifically exempt from disclosure by statute. Such statutes expressly state that such a record either “shall not be a public record,” “shall be kept confidential” or “shall not be subject to the disclosure provision of the Public Records Law.” The second category under the exemption includes records deemed exempt under statute by necessary implication. Such statutes expressly limit the dissemination of particular records to a defined group of individuals or entities. A statute is not a basis for exemption if it merely lists individuals or entities to whom the records are to be provided; the statute must expressly limit access to the listed individuals or entities. In its response, the Department asserted that Exemption (a) “…[a]llows the withholding of records that specifically or by necessary implication are exempted from disclosure by statute.” The Department further stated that “[r]eports that contain CORI information cannot be released.” Criminal offender record information (CORI) is currently defined as: “Criminal offender record information,” records 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

Richard J. Siemasko, Esq. SPR22/2448 Page 3 November 10, 2022 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 be limited to information concerning persons who have attained the age of 18 and shall not include any information concerning criminal offenses or acts of delinquency committed by any person before he attained the age of 18; provided, however, that if a person under the age of 18 was adjudicated as an adult in superior court or adjudicated as an adult after transfer of a case from a juvenile session to another trial court department, information relating to such criminal offense shall be criminal offender record information. Criminal offender record information shall not include information concerning any offenses which are not punishable by incarceration. G. L. c. 6, § 167. Based on the foregoing, I find the Department has not met its burden to demonstrate how the requested records are exempt under the CORI Act. Specifically, it is unclear how these records contain “information recorded in criminal proceedings that are not dismissed before arraignment,” as defined in G. L. c. 6, § 167 (emphasis added). 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

Richard J. Siemasko, Esq. SPR22/2448 Page 4 November 10, 2022 Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280, 292 (2017). 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 response, the Department asserted that “…[d]isclosure of this record relating to a named individual may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personnel privacy.” Based on the Department’s response, I find it has not met its burden of specificity in claiming Exemption (c) to withhold the requested records in their entirety. The Department has not sufficiently explained how the records contain intimate details of a highly personal nature, nor, how disclosure of the records would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. It is also uncertain whether any of the information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. Additionally, the Department’s response did not address the balancing test outlined in PETA. Id. 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). An investigative agency is not required to demonstrate prejudice to withhold the identities of voluntary witnesses, informants, or complainants. Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 290 n.18 (1979). Exemption (f) invites a “case-by-case consideration” of

Richard J. Siemasko, Esq. SPR22/2448 Page 5 November 10, 2022 whether disclosure “would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest.” See id. at 289-290. In its response, the Department asserted that “…[w]ithholding of investigators materials necessarily compiled out of the public view by law enforcement, the disclosure of such materials would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure is not in the public interest.” Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be upon the custodian to prove with specificity the exemption which applies. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); see also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511. The Department did not meet its burden of demonstrating how the responsive records, in their entirety, constitute investigatory materials, nor how disclosure of any segregable portion “would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest[,]” as required by Exemption (f). See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90 (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). The Department must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Belenkiy with a response to the request, in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (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. Ms. Belenkiy may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within 90 calendar days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Mira Belenkiy