Heidi Murphy v. Haverhill, City of - Police Department (SPR 20250063)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 22, 2025 SPR25/0063 Aniela Ricci Records Clerk Haverhill Police Department 40 Bailey Boulevard Haverhill, MA 01830 Dear Ms. Ricci: I have received the petition of Heidi Murphy appealing the response of the Haverhill 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 20, 2024, Ms. Murphy requested, “a recording of an audio 911 phone call made on 2/1/16 at approximately relative to [a named individual]…” The Department responded on November 27, 2024, citing Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold responsive records. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. Murphy appealed, and this case, SPR25/0063, 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

Aniela Ricci SPR25/0063 Page 2 January 22, 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 November 27th Response In its November 27, 2024 response, the Department cites Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold responsive records. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26), (c). Current Appeal In her appeal, Ms. Murphy states the following: I am well aware that the call in question likely contains intimate details of a highly personal medical nature, given I have all of the court records relative to this case and am a certified victim of crime in it… However, I am still failing to understand how providing me with the original 911 audio recording would constitute an invasion of personal privacy, when you can clearly see above I already have highly sensitive medical information about the deceased because of my standing as a victim of crime. I could understand if I was a newspaper reporter who was denied; or someone without close personal ties to the victim; but given the reason why I am requesting the information and my relationship to the deceased, I do not believe there is anything else in that audio recording that I likely might not already know. I would also argue that, conversely, victims of crime in a concluded court case, should not be written off as “members of the general public”… I fail to understand how a copy of the Haverhill police report (which I noted to them I believe I may actually already have this report from that evening, and this was a “hey, can I have another copy of that report” type of question….) cannot be provided by redacting the medical information listed in the Haverhill police department report. … Again, much of the deceased’s medical information was in the newspaper, was on television, and discussed during the superior court trial. I doubt anything on the 911 audio recording from that evening will be much of a shock to me. This information was brought into the public realm, unfortunately, as often occurs in most homicide cases. 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

Aniela Ricci SPR25/0063 Page 3 January 22, 2025 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. Murphy’s status as a victim in the report and phone call 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. 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). 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. Under Exemption (c), the Department stated: [i]n that this matter involves an injury resulting in a death, the 911 call in questions contains intimate details of a highly personal medical nature and it is

Aniela Ricci SPR25/0063 Page 4 January 22, 2025 not possible to redact the personal information of the victim’s need for assistance. The call in question is strictly a request for medical assistance and contains intimate details of a highly personal nature… With regard to [Ms. Murphy’s] request for the corresponding report, the Haverhill Police Department is also denying this portion of [her] request… in that the report contains medical information of a highly personal nature and release of said report would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Lastly, the Haverhill Police Department believes that a family’s privacy interests under these types of circumstances considerably outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure. To the extent that the records contain medical information of a specifically named individual, the Department may permissibly withhold those portions from disclosure. However, it is unclear how the withheld records, 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. It is additionally uncertain whether the information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. Also, the Department 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. See Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 290 n.18 (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). The Department must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Murphy 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 days. A copy of the 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. Murphy 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: Heidi Murphy