Jessica Studstill v. Weymouth, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20243226)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 12, 2024 SPR24/3226 Captain Joseph Comperchio Weymouth Police Department 140 Winter Street Weymouth, MA 02188 Dear Captain Comperchio: I have received the petition of Jessica Studstill appealing the response of the Weymouth 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 13, 2024, Ms. Studstill requested, “any and all reports for #23-1800-0F. I would also request the accompanying Body Worn Camera Footage of [three identified officers] for this incident. I am also requesting the 911 call for this matter; Call #23- 22681.” The Department responded on November 22, 2024, providing a redacted incident report and call log, but withheld other records responsive to the request under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. Studstill appealed, and this case, SPR24/3226, 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

Captain Joseph Comperchio SPR24/3226 Page 2 December 12, 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. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Studstill states, “[t]his denial is improper under the stated exemption. The incident requested did not take place at a private home or medical facility. The entire incident took place at a veterinary hospital, open to the public. Further, should the Weymouth Police continue to claim the exemption, they can still provide the Body Worn Camera footage and/or 911 recording subject to redactions. It is improper for the entirety of this request to be denied based on an alleged exemption for a portion of the footage. Finally, Police Departments are not bound by HIPAA protections, as they are not health care providers.” The Department’s November 22nd Response In its November 22, 2024 response, the Department cites Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law for withholding and redacting records responsive to Ms. Studstill’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

Captain Joseph Comperchio SPR24/3226 Page 3 December 12, 2024 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 22nd response, the Department states, “[t]his request is partially denied based on Exemption C. Exemption C states ‘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.’” 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 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. Id. at 292. The Department must clarify these matters. Additionally, it is unclear what records responsive to the request are being withheld from disclosure. Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be upon the records custodian to identify records being withheld and prove with specificity the exemption which applies. 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 ...”); see also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511. Consequently, I find the Department did not meet its burden of specificity to withhold the responsive records. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Studstill 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: Jessica Studstill