Greg Brailsford v. Taunton, City of - Police Department (SPR 20243379)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 2, 2025 SPR24/3379 John P. Joyce Lieutenant Records Access Officer Taunton Police Department 23 Summer Street Taunton, MA 02780 Dear Lieutenant Joyce: I have received the petition of Greg Brailsford, of UpriseRI.com, appealing the response of the Taunton 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 December 10, 2024, Mr. Brailsford requested, “[o]n Dec. 10, Taunton police responded to Morton Hospital based on a report of a student body who had been removed from his school bus, Police responded between 7:30a-8:30a. We are seeking a digital copy of the body camera footage from all officers who responded.” The Department responded on December 16, 2024. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Brailsford petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/3379, 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. 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

Lieutenant John P. Joyce SPR24/3379 Page 2 January 2, 2025 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 December 16th Response In its December 16, 2024 response, the Department cited Exemption (c) to withhold the requested records in their entirety. Current appeal In his appeal, Mr. Brailsford asserts, “[o]ur interviews with Morton Hospital personnel who were present for the entire duration of the incident confirmed that Taunton PD never accessed any privileged or ‘patient-only’ areas of the facility and all areas in which they were present, the Hospital’s lobby and public cafeteria, are open to the public. As is well established, being filmed in the public areas of a hospital is not a violation of HIPAA nor an individual’s privacy rights.” 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. 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.

Lieutenant John P. Joyce SPR24/3379 Page 3 January 2, 2025 In its response, the Department states, “[t]he records requested contain medical files or information which must be withheld pursuant to this exemption. The records requested contain information which, if disclosed, would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Such information contains intimate details and the privacy interests involved outweigh the public interests in the disclosure of that information. In making that determination, the department has considered the following factors: (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. Department of Agricultural Resources, 477 Mass. 280, 292 (2017).” To the extent that the records contain medical information of specifically named individual, the Department may permissibly withhold such portions from disclosure under Exemption (c). However, it is unclear how the records, in their entirety, contain intimate details of a highly personal nature, nor how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. It is also not clear whether this information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. Further, the Department did not provide information with respect to examining whether the public interest in obtaining the requested information outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy. Id. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Brailsford with a response to the 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. Mr. Brailsford’s may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Greg Brailsford