Peter VanAmburgh v. Lynnfield, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20222482)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 15, 2022 SPR22/2482 Chief Nick Secatore Chief of Police Lynnfield Police Department 55 Summer Street Lynnfield, MA 01940 Dear Chief Secatore: I have received the petition of Peter VanAmburgh appealing the response of the Lynnfield Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 26, 2022, Mr. VanAmburgh requested a specific police report on September 23, 2022. The Department responded on September 29, 2022. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. VanAmburgh petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR22/2482, 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. 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. 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 Nick Secatore SPR22/2482 Page 2 November 15, 2022 The Department’s September 29th response In its September 29, 2022 response, the Department cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law in support of its redactions to the requested records. 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). 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 stated that, “I have identified Lynnfield Police report … and attached it. Portions of this record were redacted pursuant to G.L. c.4 s 7(26) c.”

Chief Nick Secatore SPR22/2482 Page 3 November 15, 2022 The Department has not met its burden of specificity to redact portions of the responsive record pursuant to Exemption (c). Although the Department states it redacted portions of the record under Exemption (c), the Department has not sufficiently explained its reasoning. It is unclear how the redacted information constitutes intimate details of a highly personal nature or how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. It is additionally uncertain whether the information is available from other sources. Further, with regard to the balancing test described above, the Department has not demonstrated how the privacy interest at issue outweighs the public interest in knowing whether such public servants are carrying out their duties in a law abiding and efficient manner. See PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. The Department must clarify these issues. As a result, I find the Department did not satisfy its burden in responding to this records request. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. VanAmburgh with a response to his request, provided 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 the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Mr. VanAmburgh 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: Peter VanAmburgh