Jeff Raymond v. Stoughton, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20231603)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 21, 2023 SPR23/1603 Donna M. McNamara Chief of Police Stoughton Police Department 26 Rose Street Stoughton, MA 02072 Dear Chief McNamara: I have received the petition of Jeff Raymond, of the Bramanville Tribune, appealing the response of the Stoughton Police Department (Department) to his request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On April 16, 2023, Mr. Raymond requested the following records: [1.] A copy of the document your police department sent to the POST Commission, likely sent between November 2021 and June of 2022, providing the information requested by the POST Commission for its “database listing complaints against police officers” planned for May of 2022…. [2.] Copies of any relevant responsive communications between a) your police department and/or your town officials and b) the POST Commission in regard to the database planned for May of 2022 as detailed above and/or compliance with the reporting for said database between the dates of July 1, 2021 and December 31, 2022, broadly construed…. [3.] Copies of any relevant responsive communications within or between a) your police department and b) your municipal administration in regard to this database and/or compliance with this mandate between the dates of July 1, 2021 and December 31, 2022, broadly construed…. [4.] Information concerning “complaints against police officers” issued in the calendar year 2022 and through March 31, 2023, preferably in the same format used for the information sent to POST between November 2021 and June of 2022 for the earlier-mentioned database…. 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 Donna M. McNamara SPR23/1603 Page 2 July 21, 2023 [5.] A copy of the document your police department sent to the POST Commission as sent to the POST Commission, likely sent between December 1, 2022 and April 9, 2023, to comply with the “2023 POST Commission Disciplinary Records Resubmission.”... [6.] Copies of any relevant responsive communications within or between a) your police department and b) your municipal administration in regard to this database and/or compliance with the “2023 POST Commission Disciplinary Records Resubmission” described above. Prior Appeal The requested records were the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR23/1317 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 28, 2023). In my June 23rd determination, I closed the appeal after this office was notified that the Department intended on providing a further response to Mr. Raymond. On June 30, 2023, the Department provided a response and indicated that it had redacted records responsive to Item 5 of the request pursuant to Exemption (c). Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Raymond petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR23/1603, was opened as a result. Based upon a review of the appeal, it appears Mr. Raymond’s petition only objects to the Department’s redactions to Item 5 of the request. 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(d)(iv) (written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based…”); 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). 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 30th response In its June 30, 2023 response, the Department provided the requested charts with

Chief Donna M. McNamara SPR23/1603 Page 3 July 21, 2023 redactions and indicated that the redactions were made pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Raymond indicated that the Department did not meet its burden to redact the responsive 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). 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. Sch. 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 Fin., 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. 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

Chief Donna M. McNamara SPR23/1603 Page 4 July 21, 2023 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. When citing Exemption (c), the Department stated: Under M.G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c), the “Privacy Exemption,” personnel files are exempt from disclosure under the Massachusetts Public Records Law. This exemption was enacted to protect the government’s ability to function effectively as an employer. Such exempt files include, but are not limited to, applications, employee work evaluations, disciplinary documentation, and promotion, demotion or termination information. Pursuant to this exemption, I have redacted those portions of the documents which reveal any disciplinary action taken relative to the employee, as well as whether administrative leave was imposed. See Wakefield Teachers Ass’n v. Sch. Comm. of Wakefield, 431 Mass. 792, 797-99 (2000) (“We consider first whether a disciplinary report, such as the one at issue here, falls within the first or second category of that statutory exemption. We have no doubt that such a report is ‘personnel’ information as that term is used in the first category of the exemption.”). The Department further explained: The Department has also redacted from the record dates of birth, pursuant to G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). This exemption permits a public records access officer to redact “... materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy ...”. In People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Department of Agricultural Resources, 477 Mass. 280, 292 (2017), it was clarified that a records access officer must take into account three factors when faced with potentially redacting information contained in a responsive document: (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. Regarding the redactions of the requested charts pursuant to Exemption (c), based upon the update to Exemption (c) where the amendment states that this “subclause shall not apply to records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation,” it is unclear how the requested records can be redacted.

Chief Donna M. McNamara SPR23/1603 Page 5 July 21, 2023 Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Raymond 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. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jeff Raymond