Jeff Raymond v. Hopedale, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20232271)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 6, 2023 SPR23/2271 Lieutenant Donald J. Martin, Sr. Records Access Officer Hopedale Police Department 70 Hopedale Street Hopedale, MA 01747 Dear Lieutenant Martin: I have received the petition of Jeff Raymond, of the Bramanville Tribune, appealing the response of the Hopedale 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 15, 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

Lieutenant Donald J. Martin, Sr. SPR23/2271 Page 2 October 6, 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 SPR23/1257 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 26, 2023); SPR23/1524 Determinations of the Supervisor of Records (July 17, 2023, August 8, 2023) and SPR23/2050 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 12, 2023). In my September 12th determination, I found that the Department had not met its burden to redact responsive records pursuant to Exemption (c). Subsequently, the Department responded on September 21, 2023. 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 September 21st Response In its September 21, 2023 response, the Department “continues to maintain that Exemption (c) to the Public Record Law permits it to redact limited disciplinary information from the officer-specific documentation submitted to POST.” See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). The Department previously provided Mr. Raymond with a responsive spreadsheet, with redactions under the “Discipline” column.

Lieutenant Donald J. Martin, Sr. SPR23/2271 Page 3 October 6, 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. In its September 21st response, the Department argues that “it is the Department’s position that it may appropriately continue to redact (or where appropriate withhold entirely) disciplinary documentation and information pursuant to Exemption (c).” The Department further argues that “specifically with respect to disciplinary documentation related or resulting from a Police Department internal affairs investigation, the courts had determined that such documentation is exempt from disclosure under Exemption (c).” Despite the Department’s response, I find it has not met its burden to redact the responsive records. Specifically, where the amendment to Exemption (c) states “that this subclause shall not apply to records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation,” the Department has not met its burden to show how the requested records can be redacted pursuant to Exemption (c). Order Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide a response to Mr. Raymond, in a

Lieutenant Donald J. Martin, Sr. SPR23/2271 Page 4 October 6, 2023 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. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jeff Raymond