Martha Gartland v. Wellesley, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20250793)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 3, 2025 SPR25/0793 Cheryl Carlson Records Manager Wellesley Police Department 485 Washington Street Wellesley, MA 02482 Dear Ms. Carlson: I have received the petition of Martha Gartland appealing the response of the Wellesley 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 March 11, 2025, via first class mail, Ms. Gartland requested a “report of March 1, 2025, regarding an incident that occurred between 5:00PM and 6:30PM at . . . Grove Street, Wellesley[.]” The Department provided a response in an undated letter. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. Gartland petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0793, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, in an email to this office on March 25, 2025, the City provided additional information regarding the applicability of Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold the responsive record. 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) (written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based…”); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see 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

Cheryl Carlson SPR25/0793 Page 2 April 3, 2025 also Dist. Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). 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 her March 21, 2025 appeal, Ms. Gartland states that she seeks a report concerning an incident that occurred in her apartment building. She further indicates that she appeals “the denial based on reasonable concerns including [her] safety. Concerns also relate to lack of security systems in place, etc.” Status of the requestor; reason for the request Ms. Gartland is advised, 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 G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Therefore, Ms. Gartland’s interest in obtaining the requested information shall have no bearing on the public nature of the record. The Department’s Responses In its initial response, the Department states that it does “not have a report on that date associated with [Ms. Gartland’s] name.” Subsequently, in an email to this office on March 25, 2025, a representative of the Department identified one responsive record in its possession and cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold the responsive record in its entirety. I withheld the . . . police report in line with exemption C -Privacy. The Law states that information relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted Invasion of privacy. This report contains intimate details of a highly personal nature (reputation) and is not of paramount public interest. The report has been held in it’s [sic] entirety, due to the fact that even with redactions the person of interest is identifiable. Exemption (c) Exemption (c) applies to: personnel and medical files or information and any other materials or data relating

Cheryl Carlson SPR25/0793 Page 3 April 3, 2025 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. 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). 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. The Department has not met its burden to withhold the responsive record, in its entirety, pursuant to Exemption (c). Based on the information provided in the Department’s March 25, 2025 correspondence, as described above, it is uncertain how the record contains intimate details of a highly personal nature or how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. Additionally, it is not clear from the Department’s correspondence, whether this information is available from other sources. Further, the Department must provide additional information with respect to the balancing test, which examines whether the public interest in obtaining the requested information outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy. It is additionally uncertain how the records cannot be segregated and non-exempt portions provided. 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.

Cheryl Carlson SPR25/0793 Page 4 April 3, 2025 Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Gartland with a response to her request in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) 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. Gartland may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Martha Gartland