Kelly Crooks v. Newbury, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20250347)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 14, 2025 SPR25/0347 Deputy Chief Aaron Wojtkowski Newbury Police Department 7 Morgan Avenue Newbury, MA 01951 Dear Deputy Chief Wojtkowski: I have received the petition of Kelly Crooks appealing the response of the Newbury 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 30, 2024, Ms. Crooks requested information related to an incident on 12/24/24 at an identified address. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/0129 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 16, 2025). In my January 16th determination, I learned that the Department intended on providing a supplemental response. The Department responded on January 21, 2025, providing a responsive record with redactions under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. Crooks petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0347, was opened as a result. Status of Requestor In her appeal petition, Ms. Crooks states, “I need to determine whether any illegal activity occurred on my property during the aforementioned incident.” 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 to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Ms. Crooks’ status will play no role in a determination as to whether the records should be disclosed or redacted under the Public Records Law. 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

Deputy Chief Aaron Wojtkowski SPR25/0347 Page 2 February 14, 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 21st Response In its January 21, 2025 response, the Department cites Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law for redacting the record responsive to Mr. Crooks’ request. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). 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). 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. at 438. 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).

Deputy Chief Aaron Wojtkowski SPR25/0347 Page 3 February 14, 2025 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 January 21st response, the Department states, “[t]he privacy interest in withholding this protected information outweighs the public’s interest in disclosure. First, the redacted information is not available from any other source. Second, the redacted information contains intimate details of a highly personal nature including protected personal medical information. Based on these factors, the department intends to provide Newbury Police CAD record 24-24103 but with the necessary redactions.” To the extent that the record contains medical information of a specifically named individual, the Department may permissibly withhold those portions from disclosure. However, based on the Department’s response, it is unclear what other information has been redacted from the record and how the information constitutes intimate details of a highly personal nature, or how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. The Department must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Crooks with a response to her 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.

Deputy Chief Aaron Wojtkowski SPR25/0347 Page 4 February 14, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Kelly Crooks