Daniel Narreau v. Palmer, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20240097)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 26, 2024 SPR24/0097 Christopher Burns Chief of Police Palmer Police Department 4419 Main Street Palmer, MA 01069 Dear Chief Burns: I have received the petition of Daniel Narreau appealing the response of the Palmer 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 4, 2023, Mr. Narreau requested the following records: [1] Copies of public records including a police report filed on or about January 16, 2020 at approximately 15:00 hours [and] any follow up reports of the same matter. By . . . and any ‘property manager’ along with National Grid Electric in regards to the following address in question . . . Church Street Thorndike, MA . . ., [and] any and all email correspondence and documents related to this matter from January 1, 2020 to present date of this request. Previous appeals and in camera review This request was the subject of previous appeals and a subsequent in camera inspection. See SPR23/0737 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (April 27, 2023); SPR23/1227 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 21, 2023) and SPR23/1795 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (October 24, 2023). In the October 24th determination, I ordered the Department to clarify its claims under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. The Department provided a response on December 21, 2023. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Narreau petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/0097, 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

Chief Christopher Burns SPR24/0097 Page 2 January 26, 2024 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. Attorney 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 December 21st response In its December 21, 2023 response, the Department releases the dates of birth of individuals contained in the responsive records. The Department further states that “responsive records were previously provided on 7/13/2023 where the address information was NOT redacted, and therefore already provided to the requestor.” The Department cites Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law in support of its further redactions to the 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). 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.

Chief Christopher Burns SPR24/0097 Page 3 January 26, 2024 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. Citing Exemption (c), the Department states that “any remaining redactions in the responsive records are subject to exemption (c), as they contain information related to social security numbers and personal financial information.” Based on the Department’s response, to the extent that the records contain social security numbers and personal financial information, the Department has met its burden to withhold such portions from disclosure under Exemption (c). Conclusion Where the Department has provided Mr. Narreau with un-redacted dates of birth and addresses and has met its burden for redacting additional information in the records, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Narreau is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, he is advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66 § 10(A)(c). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Daniel Narreau