Laurie Muncy v. Worcester County District Attorney's Office (SPR 20243384)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 3, 2025 SPR24/3384 Mark Relation, Esq. Assistant District Attorney Worcester District Attorney’s Office 225 Main Street, G301 Worcester, MA 01608 Dear Attorney Relation: I have received the petition of Laurie Muncy, appealing the response of the Worcester District Attorney’s Office (Office) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 16, 2024, Ms. Muncy requested “a copy of the police report and any information [the Office has] regarding the death of [a named individual.]” The Office provided a response on December 17, 2024, providing redacted records. Unsatisfied with the Office’s response, Ms. Muncy petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/3384, 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

Mark Relation, Esq. SPR24/3384 Page 2 January 3, 2025 The Office’s December 17th Response In its December 11, 2024 response, the Office provided records and cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to redact information. Current Appeal In her appeal, Ms. Muncy states, “I sent a public records request to learn the details of my child’s death because no one provided any information on how she died. The public records I received were redacted… and I am not identified as a next of kin. I am her mother and should be included as a next of kin on this official document. I am officially requesting an unredacted copy of the police report on my daughter’s death as her mother and next of kin. I would also request that the report be revised to include my information as her mother and next of kin.” Status of the requestor; reason for the request 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 G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Therefore, Ms. Muncy’s status as a relative of the subject of the police report shall have no bearing on the public nature of the record. 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

Mark Relation, Esq. SPR24/3384 Page 3 January 3, 2025 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. Under Exemption (c), the Office stated, “[p]lease note, [the Office] has an obligation to protect the privacy of persons named in the documents. Therefore, the public file does not include witness names, dates of birth, telephone numbers, residential addresses, motor vehicle registrations and other private personal information.” Based on the Office’s response, the Office has not explained how the redacted information constitutes intimate details of a highly personal nature, or how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. Also, the Office 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. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. The Office must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Office is ordered to provide Ms. Muncy 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. 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. Ms. Muncy may appeal the substantive nature of the Office’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Laurie Muncy