Faith Imafidon v. Massachusetts Department of State Police (SPR 20250047)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 16, 2025 SPR25/0047 Allison Mondello Public Records Manager Massachusetts Department of State Police 470 Worcester Road Framingham, MA 01702 Dear Ms. Mondello: I have received the petition of Faith Imafidon appealing the nonresponse of the Massachusetts Department of State Police (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 1, 2024, Faith Imafidon requested the following records: [1] Incident reports and/or documentation pertaining to the 12/28/14 homicide of [an identified individual] in Brockton[;] [2] Incident reports and/or documentation pertaining to the 12/28/14 homicide of [an identified individual] in Brockton[;] [3] Incident reports and/or documentation pertaining to the 04/19/15 homicide of [an identified individual] in Brockton[;] [4] Incident reports and/or documentation pertaining to the 01/30/15 homicide of [an identified individual] in Brockton[;] [5] Incident reports and/or documentation pertaining to the 01/30/15 homicide of [an identified individual] in Brockton. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR24/3137 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 26, 2024). In my November 26th determination, I ordered the Department to provide Ms. Imafidon with a response to her request. The Department responded on December 4, 2024, denying access to the responsive records under Exemption (c) of the 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

Allison Mondello SPR25/0047 Page 2 January 16, 2025 Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. Imafidon appealed, and this case, SPR25/0047, 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. 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, Ms. Imafidon states, “[t]he incident report is not a personnel file related to employment or medical history therefore Exemption C does not apply. In regard to the unwarranted invasion of personal privacy it is unclear whom MSP believes this affects. If it is the victim, the victim’s rights to privacy unfortunately ended the day of their death…. I am willing to receive an incident report in which such sensitive information has been redacted. Several of these homicide cases have been covered extensively in the news, as a result, basic facts are already part of the public record. The public has the right to know what if anything the police have been doing to solve this case nearly 10 years later. It was then and still is now a matter of public interest and concern.” The Department’s December 4th Response In its December 4, 2024 response, the Department states it “conducted a diligent search of its record systems and located the following record(s): Report; 2014-113-0653, Report; 2015- 113-0048[.] The Department takes the position that the requested records are not subject to public disclosure pursuant to General Laws c. 4, §7, cl. 26 (c)…” Exemption (c) Exemption (c) applies to:

Allison Mondello SPR25/0047 Page 3 January 16, 2025 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 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 December 4th response, the Department states, “the records and photographs sought to implicate matters of intimate detail of a highly personal and private nature. The Department asserts that the privacy exemption clause exempts from public disclosure information relating to and surrounding such tragic and sensitive matters. See, e.g., Opinion of the Supervisor of Public Records, SPR05/063 (emergency 911 call of family member concerning suicide attempt of another family member not subject to public dissemination pursuant to privacy exemption of G.L. c. 4, §7, cl. 26 (c)).” Although portions of the responsive records may fall under Exemption (c), it is uncertain how the records can be withheld in their entirety. The Department must clarify whether segregable portions of the records can be provided. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). Therefore, the Department has not met its burden to withhold records under Exemption (c), and must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Imafidon with a response to her request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its

Allison Mondello SPR25/0047 Page 4 January 16, 2025 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: Faith Imafidon