Michael Motherway v. Stoneham, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20243118)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 27, 2024 SPR24/3118 Chief James P. O’Connor Stoneham Police Department 47 Central Street Stoneham, MA 02180 Dear Chief O’Connor: I have received the petition of Michael Motherway appealing the response of the Stoneham 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 November 12, 2024, Mr. Motherway requested, “all available police reports regarding [a specified name and address].” The Department provided a response on November 12, 2024. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Motherway petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/3118, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the Department provided a supplemental response on November 19, 2024. Purpose of request; identity of requestor Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Mr. Motherway’s purpose in making the request has no bearing on the public status of any existing responsive records. 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). 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 James P. O’Connor SPR24/3118 Page 2 November 27, 2024 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 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 12th and 19th Responses In its November 12, 2024 response, the Department provided responsive records and cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold additional responsive records. Current appeal In his appeal, Mr. Motherway states, “[t]hey are classified as Exemption (C) (Medical). I’m the individual in question and thus, this request should circumvent such privacy concerns.” 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). Medical information that is of a personal nature and relates to a specifically named individual is exempt from disclosure. Brogan v. Sch. Comm. of Westport, 401 Mass. 306, 308 (1987); Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Ret. Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 438 (1983). Generally, medical information is sufficiently personal to warrant exemption. Id. at 432-34. There is a strong public policy in Massachusetts that favors confidentiality as to medical data about a person’s body. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Chief Med. Exam’r, 404 Mass. 132, 135 (1987). 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.

Chief James P. O’Connor SPR24/3118 Page 3 November 27, 2024 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. 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. In its November 12th response, the Department stated, “[a]fter a review, reports #2414793, 2412821, 2412690, 2409930, 2202754 and 1610345 will not be released in accordance with Exemption (c) of Massachusetts General Law, chapter 4, section 7(26) as the record contains medical information, the release of which may constitute an invasion of personal privacy.” On November 19, 2024, the Department sent an email to this office and stated, “[Mr. Motherway] requested all police reports involving his name. A check of our records showed several police reports. Further check revealed that some of these police reports included medical records including indications someone was suffering from mental illness. As a result Motherway was provided several reports and was denied under exemption C for the reports including mental illness. I attached the letter we sent him.” To the extent that the records contain medical information of a specifically named individual, the Department may permissibly withhold those portions from disclosure. However, it is unclear how the withheld documents, in their entirety, constitute 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 the information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. Also, the Department did 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. The Department must clarify these matters. As a result, I find that the Department did not meet its burden of specificity in withholding certain reports, in their entirety, under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law.

Chief James P. O’Connor SPR24/3118 Page 4 November 27, 2024 Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Motherway 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: Michael Motherway