Stacey Velasquez v. Framingham, City of - Police Department (SPR 20242307)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 27, 2024 SPR24/2307 Kristin Sullivan Records Manager Framingham Police Department 1 William H. Welch Way Framingham, MA 01702 Dear Ms. Sullivan: I have received the petition of Stacey Velasquez appealing the response of the Framingham 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 25, 2024, Ms. Velasquez requested, “police report for car accident July 19th, 2024 Incident…” The Department responded on August 12, 2024, providing records and redacting information. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Velasquez petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/2307, 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

Kristin Sullivan SPR24/2307 Page 2 August 27, 2024 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 August 12th Response On August 12, 2024, the Department cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to redact information. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Current Appeal In her appeal, Ms. Velazquez states, “I respectfully request that I be allowed an unredacted accident report from the public records department… The accident involved three vehicles however the information for the driver and passenger in the car that caused the accident has been redacted. I need all the information for my attorney’s and insurance company. The passenger is a witness and having the name redacted makes it harder for my lawyer to get a statement. I believe under the law that the information I need is relevant and is not privileged since they were a party in the accident that caused injury and property damage.” 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). The types of personal information which this exemption is designed to protect includes: marital status, paternity, substance abuse, government assistance, family disputes and reputation.

Kristin Sullivan SPR24/2307 Page 3 August 27, 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. Under Exemption (c), the Department stated, “[u]nder MA public record law we are required to redact information such as the Drivers License. Driver License numbers are used as a personal form of identity for people when opening lines of credit etc. it acts in many ways like an alternate social security number. The Framingham Police Department must redact on the grounds that providing the requested records would violate [Exemption (c)]. This category applies to materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy[.] Drivers’ License numbers redacted[.] Personal identifying information redacted[.]” To the extent the records contain driver’s license numbers, the Department may permissibly withhold such portions from disclosure under Exemption (c). However, based on Ms. Velasquez’s appeal, the Department must clarify what additional information, aside from the driver’s license numbers, was redacted from the records and how that information constitutes intimate details of a highly personal nature under Exemption (c). G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based…”); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511 (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). The Department must clarify this matter. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Velasquez 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,

Kristin Sullivan SPR24/2307 Page 4 August 27, 2024 Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Stacey Velasquez