Emma Rindlisbacher v. Taunton, City of - Police Department (SPR 20250101)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 17, 2025 SPR25/0101 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 four requests for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). In four (4) separate requests on December 12, 2024, Ms. Rindlisbacher requested the following records: [1] Body camera footage recorded by Officer...on July 19, 2024 and July 20, 2024 when responding to [identified individuals’] incident[;] [2] Body camera footage recorded by Officer...on July 20, 2024 when responding to [identified individuals’] incident...[;] [3] Body camera footage recorded by Officer...on July 19, 2024 when responding to [identified individuals’] incident[;] [4] Body camera footage recorded by Sergeant...on July 19, 2024 when responding to [identified individuals’] incident. Previous Appeals These requests were the subject of previous appeals. See SPR25/0041; SPR25/0042; SPR25/0043; SPR25/0044; SPR25/0045 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 10, 2025). In my January 10th determination, I found that the Department had provided Ms. Rindlisbacher with a response to her request. The Department provided a response on January 10, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Rindlisbacher petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0101, was opened as a result. 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 SPR25/0101 Page 2 January 17, 2025 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. The Department’s January 10th Response In its January 10, 2025 response, the Department withheld responsive records pursuant to G. L. c. 41, § 97D, as it operates through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. Current Appeal In her January 10, 2025 petition to this office, Ms. Rindlisbacher objected to the withholding of responsive records. Exemption (a) Exemption (a), known as the statutory exemption, permits the withholding of records that are: specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). A governmental entity may use the statutory exemption as a basis for withholding requested materials where the language of the exempting statute relied upon expressly or necessarily implies that the public’s right to inspect records under the Public Records Law is restricted. See Att’y Gen. v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 54 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-46 (1977).

Lieutenant John Joyce SPR25/0101 Page 3 January 17, 2025 This exemption creates two categories of exempt records. The first category includes records that are specifically exempt from disclosure by statute. Such statutes expressly state that such a record either “shall not be a public record,” “shall be kept confidential” or “shall not be subject to the disclosure provision of the Public Records Law.” The second category under the exemption includes records deemed exempt under statute by necessary implication. Such statutes expressly limit the dissemination of particular records to a defined group of individuals or entities. A statute is not a basis for exemption if it merely lists individuals or entities to whom the records are to be provided; the statute must expressly limit access to the listed individuals or entities. In its January 10, 2025 response, the Department relies upon G. L. c. 41, § 97D, which provides in pertinent part: All reports of rape and sexual assault or attempts to commit such offenses, all reports of abuse perpetrated by family or household members, as defined in section 1 of chapter 209A, and all communications between police officers and victims of such offenses or abuse shall not be public reports and shall be maintained by the police departments in a manner that shall assure their confidentiality; provided, however, that all such reports shall be accessible at all reasonable times, upon written request, to: (i) the victim, the victim’s attorney, others specifically authorized by the victim to obtain such information, prosecutors and (ii) victim-witness advocates ... G. L. c. 41, § 97D. In its response, the Department states: Said records are exempt from the Public Record Law under M.G.L. c. 4, sec.7, clause 26(a) - exempted from disclosure by statute. Specifically, the records that the requestor seeks are within the scope of M.G.L. c. 41, sec. 97D. Therefore, it would be a violation of the law for the Police Department to release the records. Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear how the responsive records fall within the type of records contemplated in G. L. c. 41, § 97D. The Department merely cites the statute without any further explanation as to the statute’s applicability to the responsive records. A records custodian is required to not only cite an exemption but to specifically explain the applicability of the exemption to the requested records for compliance with the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv). The Department must clarify this matter. 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

Lieutenant John Joyce SPR25/0101 Page 4 January 17, 2025 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). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Emma Rindlisbacher Matthew J. Costa, Esq.