Stanley Mazurczyk v. Chelmsford, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20232983)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 26, 2023 SPR23/2983 Alexandra Hayden Records Access Officer Chelmsford Police Department 3 Olde North Road Chelmsford, MA 01824 Dear Ms. Hayden: I have received the petition of Stanley Mazurczyk appealing the response of the Chelmsford 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 November 11, 2022, Mr. Mazurczyk stated, “[a]ttached is July 2021 Chelmsford Police Department (Department) Verizon invoice. Page 5 reveals [a named person] operates Town of Chelmsford (Town) paid for redacted cell phone. It’s unclear if [the named person] is Department employee exploiting Town funds. I request Town provide record of [the named person’s] employment status at that and current time. Reason for redacting cell phone number assigned to her.” Prior appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR22/2707 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 8, 2022); SPR23/0202 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 14, 2023); SPR23/0462 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 22, 2023); SPR23/0797 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (May 9, 2023); and SPR23/1916 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 1, 2022). In my September 1st determination, I found that the Department had not met its burden to redact the price plan code pursuant to Exemption (n). On September 14, 2023, the Department responded. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Mazurczyk petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR23/2983, 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 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

Alexandra Hayden SPR23/2983 Page 2 December 26, 2023 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 14th Response In its September 14, 2023 response, the Department provided records and cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to redact a cell phone number. Current Appeal In his current appeal, Mr. Mazurczyk asserts: Attached [record], represent [a named individual]’s transfer of privately held cell phone accountability to Town of Chelmsford taxpayers’, expecting privacy exemption. Incorporated in that form are two account numbers pertinent to this inquiry… [1] It’s unclear why these accounts are redacted. [Named individual] willingly transferred his privately held cell phone information to publically held entity, the town. [2] It’s unclear from Department’s response if [a named individual]’s account was established at the same time as that of [a named individual]. 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

Alexandra Hayden SPR23/2983 Page 3 December 26, 2023 (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). 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. Under Exemption (c), the Department states: Regarding the personal cellphone number redaction, as previously stated in SPR23/0202 personal phone numbers are redacted based upon [Exemption (c)]. This personal cell phone number needed to be redacted in both SPR23/0202 and SPR23/1916 as it is vital in protecting personnel and or Medical Information. Therefore, I am required by statute to withhold this information and redact it in its entirety… Based on the Department’s response and to the extent the records contain a personal cell phone number, the Department may permissibly redact this portion from disclosure under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed.

Alexandra Hayden SPR23/2983 Page 4 December 26, 2023 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Stanley Mazurczyk