Patrick J. Mason v. Dalton, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20242912)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 5, 2024 SPR24/2912 Deanna Strout Chief of Police Dalton Police Department 462 Main Street Dalton, MA 01226 Dear Chief Strout: I have received the petition of Patrick J. Mason appealing the response of the Dalton 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 September 8, 2024, Mr. Mason requested the following: [1.] All calls for service by the Dalton Police Department to [a specified address] from January 2016 to June 2024. [2.] All calls for service by the Dalton Police Department to [a specified address] from 2008 to 2017. Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR24/2704 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (October 8, 2024). In my October 8th determination, I found that the Department must provide additional information regarding how the records are exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Law. The Department provided a response on October 23, 2024. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Mason petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/2912, 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, 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

Chief Deanna Strout SPR24/2912 Page 2 November 5, 2024 § 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. The Department’s October 23rd Response In its October 23, 2024 response, the Department cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to redact information from the records provided. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Mason states, “[t]he Department is [citing] exemption C in its withholding the information which this request has nothing to do with personnel or medical files or data related to a name person. The name is an utterance made by [a named individual] with no content… He[r] utterance was simply a question to where her husband was going.” 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:

Chief Deanna Strout SPR24/2912 Page 3 November 5, 2024 marital status, paternity, substance abuse, government assistance, family disputes and reputation. 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). 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. Under Exemption (c), the Department states the following: Mr. Mason alleges the Department improperly redacted a word from the following sentence: “where is he going [redacted].” … The redacted word… is an individual’s name, with whom [a named individual] suspected her spouse… or having an improper relationship. … The name of the individual with whom [a named individual] suspected her spouse of having an inappropriate relationship is not publicly known. Therefore, the disclosure of the individual’s identity would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Based on the Department’s response, I find that the Department may permissibly withhold the individual’s name under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Conclusion Where the Department has met its burden to redact the information under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Mason is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Patrick J. Mason Rebecca L. Whitaker