MA Public Records Search
← Back to Search

Patrick J. Mason v. Wellesley, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20241618)

Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records · Filed 05-29-2024

ClosedAppealPetitioner Won

SPR 20241618 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Patrick J. Mason concerning records held by Wellesley, Town of - Police Department, opened 05-29-2024. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records.

Case Details

Case Number
20241618
Case Type
Appeal
Case Subtype
Initial
Status
Closed
Requester
Patrick J. Mason
Custodian
Wellesley, Town of - Police Department
Date Opened
05-29-2024
Date Closed
06-12-2024

PDF Document

Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 12, 2024 SPR24/1618 Lieutenant Marie Cleary Records Access Officer Wellesley Police Department 485 Washington Street Wellesley, MA 02482 Dear Lieutenant Cleary: I have received the petition of Patrick J. Mason appealing the response of the Wellesley 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 May 23, 2024, Mr. Mason requested, “the citation number and copy of the citation related to Crash Report 23-211-AC that took place on May 17, 2023. [He] attached a copy of [identified individual’s] report which indicates the operator would be cited for Failure to Yield to a Pedestrian in a crosswalk.” The Department responded on May 29, 2024, citing Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law for withholding the responsive record. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Mason appealed, and this case, SPR24/1618, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, on June 3, 2024, the Department emailed this office providing more information. 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 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 Marie Cleary SPR24/1618 Page 2 June 12, 2024 must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld 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. The Department’s May 29th and June 3rd Responses In its May 29, 2024 response, the Department states that it is “not releasing a copy of the citation,” and cites Exemption (c) for withholding the record. In an email to this office on June 3, 2024, the Department stated, “[t]he citations have all of the offender’s private and personal information and is an invasion of personal privacy as described in exemption 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. 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. Based on the Department’s responses, it is unclear how the record contains intimate details of a highly personal nature, or how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to

Lieutenant Marie Cleary SPR24/1618 Page 3 June 12, 2024 an individual of normal sensibilities. Further, the Department did not provide 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. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. It is additionally uncertain how the record cannot be redacted to protect the individual’s personal information. Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). The Department must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Mason 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 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: Patrick J. Mason.