Michael J. Capozza v. Holyoke, City of - Police Department (SPR 20250635)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 19, 2025 SPR25/0635 Patricia Alicea Holyoke Police Department Records Bureau 138 Appleton Street Holyoke, MA 01040 Dear Ms. Alicea: I have received the petition of Michael J. Capozza, Esq., on behalf of Mildred Fuentes, appealing the response of the Holyoke 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 October 3, 2024, Attorney Capozza requested, “a copy of any report associated with the . . . incident number [#24-5328- OF]…” On October 10, 2024, the Department withheld the responsive record in its entirety, but on October 24, 2024, the Department released a redacted version of the record. On February 28, 2025, the Department cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law for redactions. Unsatisfied with the Department’s responses, Attorney Capozza petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0635, was opened as a result. Status of Requestor In his appeal petition, Attorney Capozza states that “the Client’s request for the full incident report is not unreasonable considering the tragic loss of her beloved daughter and would not cause a serious interference with the privacy of the Deceased.” 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, Attorney Capozza nor Ms. Fuentes’ status will play a role in a determination as to whether the record 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

Patricia Alicea SPR25/0635 Page 2 March 19, 2025 It is unclear if Attorney Capozza may have a greater right of access to the responsive records outside the Public Records Law. The parties are encouraged to communicate to determine if there is another means affording Attorney Capozza a greater right of access to the responsive records. 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. Current appeal In his appeal, Attorney Capozza states: The Records Access Officer denied the request for production of the unredacted report under the Personal Privacy Exemption of 950 CMR 33.16, which states: ‘In general, it is an invasion of personal privacy... to disclose personal data where such disclosure will result in an unreasonable, substantial or serious interference with the privacy of a data subject unless the data subject or his authorized representative consents to such disclosure… The Authorization for Release of Information signed by my Client as the Voluntary Administrator of the Estate … and submitted to the Records Access Officer, includes and constitutes written consent to the disclosure of ‘Personal Data’ by the legal representative of the Decedent. Therefore, because the legal representative of the subject person has consented to disclosure of Personal Data, the Records Access Officer’s rationale for withholding the unredacted incident report should not be upheld on the grounds that the request represents an unreasonable interference with the privacy of the

Patricia Alicea SPR25/0635 Page 3 March 19, 2025 data subject and the failure to disclose the requested information in light of consent to disclosure is not compliant with 950 CMR 32.00…. The Department’s October 10th and February 28th Responses In its October 10, 2024 response, the Department withheld the responsive record and cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. The record was later released with redactions. The Department provided another response on February 28, 2025, citing Exemption (c) for the redactions. 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 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). 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). The types of personal information which this exemption is designed to protect includes: marital status, paternity, substance abuse, government assistance, family disputes and reputation. Id. at 292 n.13; see also Doe v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 415, 427 (1988) (holding that a motor vehicle licensee has a privacy interest in disclosure of his social security number).

Patricia Alicea SPR25/0635 Page 4 March 19, 2025 This exemption requires 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 February 28th response, the Department states, “[t]his is medical call and the redacted information is medical information and that is why it was redacted.” To the extent that the Department redacted medical information that relates to a specifically named individual from the responsive records, I find that the Department has met its burden to withhold such portions under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Attorney Capozza is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Michael J. Capozza, Esq.