Glenn Colassi v. Mansfield, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20240136)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 30, 2024 SPR24/0136 Matthew Todesco Records Access Officer Mansfield Police Department Public Safety Building 500A East Street Mansfield, MA 02048 Dear Mr. Todesco: I have received the petition of Glenn Colassi appealing the response of the Mansfield 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 December 12, 2023, Mr. Colassi requested an August 12, 2011 police report pertaining to an incident at the Comcast Center during a concert by Journey involving an identified person. On December 13, 2023, the Department provided a response to Mr. Colassi denying the report in its entirety under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Unsatisfied with the December 13th response, Mr. Colassi petitioned the Supervisor of Records and this appeal was opened. 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. 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 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

Matthew Todesco SPR24/0136 Page 2 January 30, 2024 or redacted portion of the responsive record. 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. Current Appeal In his petition for appeal, Mr. Colassi asserts, “[the report] is in regard to an incident where a woman was taken into custody for disorderly conduct. The records’ request was erroneously denied…” The Department withheld the report in its entirety pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). 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. Medical information that is of a personal nature and relates to a specifically named individual may be exempt from disclosure. Brogan v. Sch. Comm. of Westport, 401 Mass. 306,308 (1987); Globe Newspaper Co., 388 Mass. at 438. Generally, medical information is sufficiently personal to warrant exemption. Globe Newspaper Co., 338 Mass. at 432-34. There is a strong public policy in Massachusetts that favors confidentiality as to medical data about a person's body. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Chief Med. Exam’r, 404 Mass. 132, 135 (1987). 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).

Matthew Todesco SPR24/0136 Page 3 January 30, 2024 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 response, the Department states, “the [record] requested contain[s] medical files or information which must be withheld/redacted from the records pursuant to this exemption. The [record] requested contain[s] information which, if disclosed, would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Such information contains intimate details and the privacy interests involved outweigh the public interests in the disclosure of that information. As a result, such information must be withheld/redacted under the [Public Records Law].” Based on the Department’s claim, I find that the Department has not demonstrated that the record, in its entirety, can be withheld under Exemption (c). Also, based on the Department’s claim, the Department has not demonstrated that the report contains intimate details of a highly personal nature; nor that disclosure of the report would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. It is additionally uncertain whether any of the information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. Also, the Department did not provide additional information with respect to the balancing test which examines whether the public interest in obtaining the requested information outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy. Id. at 291. Consequently, I find that the Department did not meet its burden of specificity in demonstrating that the report can be withheld in its entirety, under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Colassi 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 the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Glenn Colassi