Joe Siegel v. Rehoboth, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20243436)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 8, 2025 SPR24/3436 Douglas A. Brown Jr. Police Sergeant Records Access Officer Rehoboth Police Department 334 Anawan Street Rehoboth, MA 02769 Dear Sergeant Brown: I have received the petition of Joe Siegel, appealing the response of the Rehoboth 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 14, 2024, Mr. Siegel requested, “[t]he Police Department incident report regarding the response to an emergency at [a specified address] on the evening of November 13, 2024.” Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR24/3166 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 5, 2024). In my December 5th determination, I found that the Department may permissibly withhold portions containing medical information from disclosure but it was 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. The Department provided a response on December 19, 2024, providing redacted records. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Siegel petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/3436, 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). 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

Sergeant Douglas A. Brown Jr. SPR24/3436 Page 2 January 8, 2025 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 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 19th Response In its December 19, 2024 response, the Department cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to redact information. Current appeal In his appeal, Mr. Siegel states, “I am not satisfied with the response. The issue is about government transparency and freedom of the press. I understand the need to protect certain information. However, I feel there was no need to withhold vital details about the incident.” 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.

Sergeant Douglas A. Brown Jr. SPR24/3436 Page 3 January 8, 2025 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. Under Exemption (c), the Department stated, “[r]eport 24-761-OF contains medical information with a high privacy interest that outweighs a low public interest. For the first privacy interest factor, these medical details that would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities because they describe an accident, the circumstances around it, and the effects of it, all regarding an individual. Second, these details are highly intimate because they describe the physical and medical condition of the individual. And third, this information is not available from other sources, including the subsequent public statements regarding the accident. Only this report contains these details. Together, the privacy interest is substantial. Whereas the public interest is low because these medical details have no bearing on a public servant’s duties or their law-abiding and efficient manner. The privacy interest outweighs the public’s and so the medical information is redacted. Further, the home address and phone numbers within the report are redacted as well.” In camera inspection In order to facilitate a determination as to the applicability of the Exemption (c) claim made by the Department to redact the responsive record, the Department must provide this office with an un-redacted copy of the record for in camera inspection. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4). After I complete my review of the record, I will return the record to the Department’s custody and issue an opinion on the public or exempt nature of the record. The authority to require the submission of records for an in camera inspection emanates from the Code of Massachusetts Regulations. 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4); see also G. L. c. 66, § 1. This office interprets the in camera inspection process to be analogous to that utilized by the judicial system. See Rock v. Mass. Comm’n Against Discrimination, 384 Mass. 198, 206 (1981) (administrative agency entitled deference in the interpretation of its own regulations). Records

Sergeant Douglas A. Brown Jr. SPR24/3436 Page 4 January 8, 2025 are not voluntarily submitted, but rather are submitted pursuant to an order by this office that an in camera inspection is necessary to make a proper finding. Records are submitted for the limited purpose of review. This office is not the custodian of records examined in camera, therefore, any request made to this office for records being reviewed in camera will be denied. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4)(c). This office has a long history of cooperation with governmental agencies with respect to in camera inspection. Custodians submit copies of the relevant records to this office upon a promise of confidentiality. This office does not release records reviewed in camera to anyone under any circumstances. Upon a determination of the public record status, records reviewed in camera are promptly returned to the custodian. To operate in any other fashion would seriously impede our ability to function and would certainly affect our credibility within the legal community. Please be aware, any cover letter submitted to accompany the relevant records may be subject to disclosure. Order Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide this office with an un-redacted copy of the responsive record for in camera inspection without delay. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Joe Siegel