← Back to Search
MaryAnn Levasseur v. Orleans, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20243073)
Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records · Filed 11-13-2024
ClosedAppealPetitioner Won
SPR 20243073 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by MaryAnn Levasseur concerning records held by Orleans, Town of - Police Department, opened 11-13-2024. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records.
Case Details
- Case Number
- 20243073
- Case Type
- Appeal
- Case Subtype
- Initial
- Status
- Closed
- Requester
- MaryAnn Levasseur
- Custodian
- Orleans, Town of - Police Department
- Date Opened
- 11-13-2024
- Date Closed
- 11-20-2024
- Date Request Submitted
- 07-29-2024
- Response Provided Date
- 12-09-2024
- Processing Fees Charged
- 0.00
- Petitions Regarding Fees
- No
- Time to Comply
- 10 Business Days
- Went to Court
- No
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 November 20, 2024 SPR24/3073 Jill Hull Acting Records Clerk Orleans Police Department 99 Eldredge Park Way Orleans, MA 02653-3307 Dear Ms. Hull: I have received the petition of MaryAnn Levasseur appealing the response of the Orleans 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 29, 2024, Ms. Levasseur requested records related to police calls to an identified address from 01/01/2020 to the present. The Department responded on November 13, 2024, withholding records responsive to the request under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. Levasseur appealed, and this case, SPR24/3073, 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. 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 Jill Hull SPR24/3073 Page 2 November 20, 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 Department’s November 13th Response In its November 13, 2024 response, the Department cites Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law for withholding records responsive to Ms. Levasseur’s request. 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 November 13th response, the Department states, “[t]he release of this report would reveal intimate details of a highly personal nature; therefore, the request is being denied.” Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear how the records contain intimate details of a highly personal nature, or how disclosure would result in personal 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 Department did Jill Hull SPR24/3073 Page 3 November 20, 2024 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. Id. The Department must clarify these matters. Additionally, it is uncertain what records the Department possesses that it withheld under Exemption (c). The Department must identify the records, categories of records, or portions of records it intends to withhold under Exemption (c). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a 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”). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Levasseur with a response to her 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: MaryAnn Levasseur