Good Citizen v. Chicopee, City of - Police Department (SPR 20231245)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 23, 2023 SPR23/1245 Officer Anouson Souvannasane Chicopee Police Department Records Access Officer 17 Springfield Street Chicopee, MA 01013 Dear Officer Souvannasane: I have received the petition of “Good Citizen” (Requestor) appealing the response of the Chicopee Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On May 3, 2023, the requestor sought “Video Recording of both inside lobby and main entrance outside of Chicopee Police Department on the date of 05/01/2023 from 6:55 p.m. until 7:15 p.m.” Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR23/1245 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 5, 2023). In my June 5th determination, I ordered the Department to clarify whether it was able to provide segregable portions of the responsive video. Subsequently, the Department responded on June 9, 2023, providing responsive records. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, the requestor further appealed, and this case 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. Att’y for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of 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

Anouson Souvannasane SPR23/1245 Page 2 June 23, 2023 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. The Department’s June 9th Response In its June 9, 2023 response, the Department provides portions of the responsive video and states that it has redacted other parts of the video under Exemption (c). See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). 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). 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). 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 previous May 18, 2023 response, under Exemption (c), the Department argues, among other things, the following:

Anouson Souvannasane SPR23/1245 Page 3 June 23, 2023 The requested video of the lobby of the police department and exterior doors adjacent to, includes interactions between private citizens and appears to be a custodial exchange of juvenile children between parents. They do so not expecting this exchange to be publicized for the world to see as custody disputes [can] be of a contentious nature and may be a point of embarrassment for those involved. There is no police/government presence or police interaction with the public at any point during the requested time period and therefore, no public interest in auditing government actions. In its June 9th response, the Department provides redacted portions of the requested video and explains that its “previous response noted that included in this timeframe was video, which ... was of privacy interest to those involved under Exemption C.” The Department further explains that it “will exclude those video clips from the records ... to protect the privacy of those involved.” The Department goes on to explain that it is “providing any other available video which does not fall under this exemption.” The Department also notes that its “video management software records based on motion activation only. Therefore, the only other recording during this timeframe was that of a food delivery which the Police Department is providing with this response.” In this case, the Department has provided segregable portions of the responsive video, and has previously explained that the juvenile child and parents depicted in the redacted portion of the video have a privacy interest under Exemption (c). Consequently, I find that the Department has met its burden in responding to this request. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If the requestor 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, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: “Good Citizen”