Deirdre Fernandes v. Chelsea, City of - Police Department (SPR 20242760)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 18, 2024 SPR24/2760 Jessica C. Morales Paralegal Law Department Chelsea City Hall 500 Broadway, Room 307 Chelsea, MA 02150 Dear Ms. Morales: I have received the petition of Deirdre Fernandes, of the Boston Globe, appealing the response of the City of Chelsea (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 23, 2024, Ms. Fernandes requested “any reports and documents related to the car crash that killed [a named individual], on March 29, 2024.” The City responded on September 24, 2024, and again on October 2, 2024. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Ms. Fernandes petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR24/2760, 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. 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. If there are any fees associated with a response, a written good faith estimate must be 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

Jessica C. Morales SPR24/2760 Page 2 October 18, 2024 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 City’s September 24th and October 2nd Responses In its September 24, 2024 response, the City provided responsive records in redacted form. In its October 2, 2024 response, the City claims that the records are redacted pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. See 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. 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. In its response, under Exemption (c), the City states that “Exemption c found at M.G.L. Ch. 4, Sec. 7 (26) (c) provides for withholding ‘materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.’” Based on the City’s response, it is unclear how the redacted information constitutes intimate details of a highly personal nature nor how disclosure would result in personal

Jessica C. Morales SPR24/2760 Page 3 October 18, 2024 embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. It is additionally uncertain whether any of the withheld information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. Also, the City 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. The City must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Ms. Fernandes 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: Deirdre Fernandes