Daniel Narreau v. Palmer, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20231227)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 21, 2023 SPR23/1227 Chief Christopher Burns Chief of Police Palmer Police Department 4419 Main Street Palmer, MA 01069 Dear Chief Burns: I have received the petition of Daniel Narreau appealing the response of the Palmer Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On April 4, 2023, Mr. Narreau requested the following records: [1] Copies of public records including a police report filed on or about January 16, 2020 at approximately 15:00 hours [and] any follow up reports of the same matter[;] [and] [2] [Copies of public records] by [specific individual] and any “property manager” along with National Grid Electric in regards to [specific address], [and] any and all email correspondence and documents related to this matter from January 1, 2020 to present date of this request. Previous appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR23/0737 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (April 27, 2023). In my April 27th determination, I asked the Department to clarify whether additional responsive records existed. The Department provided a response on May 15, 2023. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Narreau petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR23/1227, 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 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 Christopher Burns SPR23/1227 Page 2 June 21, 2023 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. The Department’s May 15th response In its May 15, 2023 response, the Department provided Mr. Narreau with a redacted police report. The Department cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law in support of its redactions. 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).

Chief Christopher Burns SPR23/1227 Page 3 June 21, 2023 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 the following: Exemption (c): This exemption applies to any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The records requested contain information which, if disclosed, would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy (i.e. DOB, Social Security Number, other personal identifying information). Based on the Department’s response, to the extent that the records contain the social security number of an identified individual, the Department may permissibly withhold such portions from disclosure. However, the Department has not demonstrated that the additional redactions contain intimate details of a highly personal nature. It is additionally uncertain whether the redacted information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. Also, the Department did not provide additional information with respect to the balancing test which examines whether the public interest in obtaining the requested information outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Narreau with a response to the 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 this response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Mr. Narreau may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Daniel Narreau