Jeff Raymond v. Williamsburg, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20232051)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 13, 2023 SPR23/2051 Denise Wickland Chief of Police Williamsburg Police Department 16 South Main Street Haydenville, MA 01039 Dear Chief Wickland: I have received the petition of Jeff Raymond, of the Bramanville Tribune, appealing the response of the Williamsburg 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 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 Denise Wickland SPR23/2051 Page 2 September 13, 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.... Previous Appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR23/1442 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 10, 2023) and SPR23/1749 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 11, 2023). In my August 11th determination, I found it was unclear how responsive records could be redacted pursuant to Exemption (c), and ordered the Department to provide Mr. Raymond with a response. Subsequently, the Department responded on August 20, 2023, again citing Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law for redacting responsive records. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Raymond 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 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 August 20th Response In its previous responses, the Department provided a spreadsheet, and in its August 20, 2023 response, the Department cites Exemption (c) for making redactions under the “Discipline” column. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c).

Chief Denise Wickland SPR23/2051 Page 3 September 13, 2023 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. Under Exemption (c), the Department argues that “there is a legal distinction between confidential personnel information and internal affairs or law enforcement misconduct investigative materials.” The Department goes on to argue that “redacting the express discipline imposed in any particular situation involving a police officer is consistent with the amended Exemption (c).” In this case, where the responsive records concern law enforcement misconduct investigations, and the recent update to Exemption (c) states “that this subclause shall not apply to records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation,” I find the Department has not met its burden to redact the responsive spreadsheet pursuant to Exemption (c). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Raymond with a response to his request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this

Chief Denise Wickland SPR23/2051 Page 4 September 13, 2023 office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jeff Raymond