Greg Brailsford v. Taunton, City of - Police Department (SPR 20250053)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 21, 2025 SPR25/0053 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.” Prior Appeal This request weas the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR24/3379 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 2, 2025). In my January 2nd determination, I found that to the extent that the records contain medical information of a specifically named individual, the Department may permissibly withhold such portions from disclosure under Exemption (c). However, it was unclear how the records may be withheld in their entirety. The Department responded on January 3, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Brailsford petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0053, 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

Lieutenant John P. Joyce SPR25/0053 Page 2 January 21, 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. 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. 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 January 3rd Response In its January 3, 2025 response, the Department cited Exemption (c) to withhold the requested records in their entirety. Current appeal In his appeal, Mr. Brailsford asserts, “[t]he public has a recognized interest in knowing whether public servants are carrying out their duties in a law-abiding and efficient manner, particularly when interacting with minors. This principle is clearly established in the Public Records Law and numerous court decisions.” 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. 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).

Lieutenant John P. Joyce SPR25/0053 Page 3 January 21, 2025 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 response, the Department states, “[t]he department wishes to respond further and state that the records requested involve a juvenile (of single digit age) that the records clearly describe the juvenile as experiencing a medical/mental health episode, regardless of whether medical treatment was immediately sought. The department has weighed the public interest element and believes that the invasion of privacy here would be severe and that the public interest in viewing police body-worn camera of a response to a child in crisis does not come close to outweighing the medical privacy interest of the involved juvenile. As a result, the records requested are being withheld.” In camera inspection In order to facilitate a determination as to the applicability of the Department’s claims to with the requested records pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law, the Department must provide this office with an un-redacted copy of the responsive records for in camera inspection. After I complete my review of the documents, I will return the records to your custody and issue an opinion on the public or exempt nature of the records. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4). 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. Massachusetts Comm’n Against Discrimination, 384 Mass. 198, 206 (1981) (administrative agency entitled deference in the interpretation of its own regulations). Records 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

Lieutenant John P. Joyce SPR25/0053 Page 4 January 21, 2025 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 records for in camera inspection without delay. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Greg Brailsford