Greg Brailsford v. Taunton, City of - Police Department (SPR 20250872)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 14, 2025 SPR25/0872 John P. Joyce Lieutenant Records Access Officer Taunton Police Department 23 Summer Street Taunton, MA 02780 Dear Lieutenant Joyce: I have received the petition of Greg Brailsford, of UpriseRI.com, appealing the response of the Taunton 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 10, 2024, Mr. Brailsford requested, “[o]n Dec. 10, Taunton police responded to Morton Hospital based on a report of a student body who had been removed from his school bus. Police responded between 7:30a-8:30a. We are seeking a digital copy of the body camera footage from all officers who responded.” Prior Appeals This request was the subject of prior appeals. See SPR24/3379 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 2, 2025) and SPR25/0053 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 21, 2025 and March 7, 2025). In my March 7th determination, following in camera review, I found that while portions of the records may fall under Exemption (c), the Department had not met its burden to withhold the body-worn camera recordings, in their entirety, under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Subsequently, the Department responded on March 24, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Brailsford petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/0872, was opened as a result. 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, 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

John P. Joyce SPR25/0872 Page 2 April 14, 2025 § 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. Attorney 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 petition, Mr. Brailsford argues, among other things, the following: The department has selectively muted nearly all substantive audio portions of the footage, specifically: - A 24-minute segment where officers interact with the minor - Conversations where a school representative explains their version of the incident - Virtually all officer-civilian interactions central to our request . . . The Department has: - Superimposed the text “Public Records Request Greg Brailsford” across the center of all footage, degrading the evidentiary value of the records and creating an unnecessary distraction - Blurred the faces of all individuals in the footage, including the uniformed officers themselves . . . - The department has failed to identify which specific exemption justifies each redaction as required by 950 CMR 32.06(3)(c) - The wholesale blurring of faces and muting of audio far exceeds any legitimate privacy interests - The department appears to have created a modified version of the records rather than providing the authentic records with minimal necessary redactions . . . We respectfully request that the Supervisor order the Taunton Police Department to: - Provide unredacted audio for all portions of the body camera footage that are not specifically exempt under Massachusetts law - Remove the obstructive text overlay from the center of the video - Provide unblurred images of all uniformed police officers - Provide unblurred images of all individuals involved in the incident, with the

John P. Joyce SPR25/0872 Page 3 April 14, 2025 exception of the minor involved - If specific, limited redactions are necessary, provide a detailed written explanation citing the specific statutory exemption that applies to each redaction Mr. Brailsford is advised that portions of the records described in his appeal petition do not contain audio recordings. The Department’s January 3rd and March 24th Response In its March 24, 2025 response, the Department provided responsive videos in redacted form. In its previous January 3, 2025 response, the Department cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law for withholding the responsive video footage. 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). 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. 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). 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

John P. Joyce SPR25/0872 Page 4 April 14, 2025 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 3rd response, the Department states, “[t]he department wishes to respond further and state that the records requested involve a juvenile (of single digit age) that the records clearly describe the juvenile as experiencing a medical/mental health episode, regardless of whether medical treatment was immediately sought. The department has weighed the public interest element and believes that the invasion of privacy here would be severe and that the public interest in viewing police body-worn camera of a response to a child in crisis does not come close to outweighing the medical privacy interest of the involved juvenile. As a result, the records requested are being withheld.” Based on the Department’s March 24th and January 3rd responses, and in conjunction with my previous in camera review, I find that where the Department has redacted the images and information that would identify the person “experiencing a medical/mental health episode,” the Department has properly redacted such information pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. However, where the Department has redacted the images of other individuals, the Department has not met its burden to redact such information. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Brailsford with a response to the request, provided 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. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Greg Brailsford