Emma Rindlisbacher v. Taunton, City of - Police Department (SPR 20250089)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 16, 2025 SPR25/0089 Lieutenant John Joyce Records Access Officer Taunton Police Department 23 Summer Street Taunton, MA 02780 Dear Lieutenant Joyce: I have received the petition of Emma Rindlisbacher 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). In separate requests on December 28, 2024 and January 2, 2025, Ms. Rindlisbacher sought records relating to an incident which occurred at Morton Hospital on a specified date. The Department provided a response on January 9, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. Rindlisbacher petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0089, 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

Lieutenant John Joyce SPR25/0089 Page 2 January 16, 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 January 9th Response In its January 9, 2025 response, the Department withheld records responsive to Ms. Rindlisbacher’s request, citing Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Current Appeal In her January 9, 2025 petition to this office, Ms. Rindlisbacher objects to the withholding of responsive records. Ms. Rindlisbacher contends that the cited exemption does not apply to the responsive records in their entirety. Exemption (c) Exemption (c) permits the withholding of: 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 may be 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. Globe Newspaper Co., 338 Mass. 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).

Lieutenant John Joyce SPR25/0089 Page 3 January 16, 2025 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 January 9, 2025 response, the Department states: The records requested involve a juvenile and 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. To the extent the responsive records contain the medical information of a specifically identified individual, such portions may be withheld under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. However, I find that the Department has not met its burden to demonstrate that the records, in their entirety, constitute intimate details of a highly personal nature. It is additionally uncertain whether the information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. The Department must clarify these matters. Further, it is uncertain whether segregable portions can be provided. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); See 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). The Department must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Rindlisbacher with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its 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. Ms. Rindlisbacher may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Lieutenant John Joyce SPR25/0089 Page 4 January 16, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Emma Rindlisbacher