Emma Rindlisbacher v. Taunton, City of - Police Department (SPR 20250418)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 27, 2025 SPR25/0418 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 requests for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). In five (5) 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 Captain ... on July 19, 2024 when responding to [identified individuals’] incident[;] [4] Body camera footage recorded by Officer ... on July 19, 2024 when responding to [identified individuals’] incident[;] [5] 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; SPR24/0043, SPR25/0044, and SPR25/0045 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 10, 2025) and SPR25/0101 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 17, 2025). In my January 17th determination, I found that it was unclear how the responsive records 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 SPR25/0418 Page 2 February 27, 2025 fall within the type of records contemplated in G. L. c. 41, § 97D. The Department provided a response on February 12, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Rindlisbacher petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0418, was opened as a result. Ms. Rindlisbacher did not appeal SPR24/0043. 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 February 12th Response In its February 12, 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 February 12, 2025 petition to this office, Ms. Rindlisbacher stated, “I am appealing this response to my request. These records should be released in a redacted form.” 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).

Lieutenant John Joyce SPR25/0418 Page 3 February 27, 2025 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). 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 February 12, 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: I believe this relates to the request for body camera footage from responding officers to a call at [an identified individual’s] residence on July 19 or 20, 2024. A request for the same records was recently the subject of a determination by the Supervisor of Records. The Supervisor agreed that the body camera footage is not a public record. The City cited M.G.L. c. 41, sec. 97D in support of its position. The nature of the call was such that said statute shields the records from disclosure. The records are “specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute’. M.G.L. c. 4, sec. 7(26)(a). For the above reasons the Police Department will not release the body camera footage that is being requested.

Lieutenant John Joyce SPR25/0418 Page 4 February 27, 2025 In a telephone conversation between the Department and an attorney at the Public Records Division, the Department confirmed that the body-worn camera footages responsive to this request are the same records this office reviewed in camera in an identical request. In light of the above, I find that the Department has met its burden to withhold the body- worn camera recordings under G. L. c. 41, § 97D, as it operates through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. See SPR24/3191 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 6, 2025). Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Emma Rindlisbacher Matthew J. Costa, Esq.