Timothy Paikopoulos v. Fall River, City of - Police Department (SPR 20242034)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 30, 2024 SPR24/2034 Amanda Matton Records Clerk Fall River Police Department 685 Pleasant Street Fall River, MA 02721 Dear Ms. Matton: I have received the petition of Timothy Paikopoulos, Esq., of South Coastal Counties Legal Services, Inc., appealing the response of the Fall River 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 July 3, 2024, Attorney Paikopoulos requested, “... any / all records/ incident reports involving [an identified individual].” On July 8, 2024, Attorney Paikopoulos modified his request to include “any/ all police logs / call logs and incident reports.” The Department responded on July 12, 2024. Unsatisfied with the response, Attorney Paikopoulos petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/2034, 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. 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

Amanda Matton SPR24/2034 Page 2 July 30, 2024 The Department’s July 12th Response In its July 12, 2024 response, the Department produced heavily redacted incident and narrative reports and cited Exemptions (a) and (c) of the Public Records Law in support of the redactions. Exemption (a) Exemption (a), known as the statutory exemption, permits the withholding of records that are: specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). A governmental entity may use the statutory exemption as a basis for withholding requested materials where the language of the exempting statute relied upon expressly or necessarily implies that the public’s right to inspect records under the Public Records Law is restricted. See Att’y Gen. v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 154 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-546 (1977). This exemption creates two categories of exempt records. The first category includes records that are specifically exempt from disclosure by statute. Such statutes expressly state that such a record either “shall not be a public record,” “shall be kept confidential” or “shall not be subject to the disclosure provision of the Public Records Law.” The second category under the exemption includes records deemed exempt under statute by necessary implication. Such statutes expressly limit the dissemination of particular records to a defined group of individuals or entities. A statute is not a basis for exemption if it merely lists individuals or entities to whom the records are to be provided; the statute must expressly limit access to the listed individuals or entities. In its response, the Department cited G. L. c. 41, § 97D, indicating that the records are exempt from disclosure. G. L. c. 41, § 97D provides in pertinent part: All reports of rape and sexual assault or attempts to commit such offenses, all reports of abuse perpetrated by family or household members, as defined in section 1 of chapter 209A, and all communications between police officers and victims of such offenses or abuse shall not be public reports and shall be maintained by the police departments in a manner that shall assure their confidentiality… G. L. c. 41, § 97D.

Amanda Matton SPR24/2034 Page 3 July 30, 2024 In its response the Department stated, “Exemption (a) allows withholding of records that are ‘specifically or by necessary implication’ exempted from disclosure by statute.” Based upon the Department’s response, it is unclear how the redacted records are restricted under G. L. c. 41, § 97D, as it operates through Exemption (a). Please be advised that for Exemption (a) to apply, a statute must either expressly state that the withheld record is not subject to disclosure under the Public Records Law, or limit dissemination of said information to a defined group or individuals or entities. Consequently, based on the Department’s response, it is unclear how the statute cited above, either specifically or by necessary implication, would permit the Department to redact the requested records. The Department must clarify this matter. 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. 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 response, the Department recited the language of the Exemption (c) statute. Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear how the redacted records contain intimate details of a highly personal nature, nor how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. It is also not clear whether this information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. Further, the Department

Amanda Matton SPR24/2034 Page 4 July 30, 2024 did not provide information with respect to examining whether the public interest in obtaining the requested information outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy. Id. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Attorney Paikopoulos 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. 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. Attorney Paikopoulos may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Timothy Paikopoulos, Esq.