Timothy Ryan v. Amesbury, City of - Police Department (SPR 20250932)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 18, 2025 SPR25/0932 Janet L. Moyer Records Access Officer Amesbury Police Department 19 School Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Dear Ms. Moyer: I have received the petition of Timothy Ryan appealing the response of the Amesbury 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 19, 2025, Mr. Ryan requested, “[a]ll records sent to POST Commission . . . about [an identified event] on 1-3-23[.]” The Department responded on April 3, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Ryan petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0932, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the Department provided a supplemental response to this office on April 8, 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. 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

Janet L. Moyer SPR25/0932 Page 2 April 18, 2025 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. Ryan states that he has not received records responsive to his request. He further asserts that the Department “will not give [him] the information from the reports so [he] can go to the POST Commission[.]” Purpose of request; identity of requestor 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, Mr. Ryan’s purpose in making the request has no bearing on the public status of any existing responsive records. The Department’s April 3rd and April 8th Responses In its April 3, 2025 response, the Department cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested records in their entirety. Subsequently, in its supplemental response to this office on April 8, 2025, the Department providing additional information regarding its claims under Exemption (c). Exemption (c) Exemption (c) permits the withholding of: 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. 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:

Janet L. Moyer SPR25/0932 Page 3 April 18, 2025 (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). 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 April 3, 2025 response, the Department “[denied Mr. Ryan’s] request for a copy of this report pursuant to Exemption (c) . . .” and indicated, “these records are considered confidential and not subject to public disclosure.” The Department additionally contended the following: This Exemption has 3 components: Personal Privacy, Medical and Personal information. The Personal Privacy portion of this exemption does not allow for the release of this information unless there is a paramount public interest in disclosure. Sections of this report that have been redacted are pursuant to Exemption (c) under the Personal Privacy portion of this exemption as well as the Medical Information portion. The details of the report that have been redacted are “intimate details of a highly personal nature.” . . . This information can be withheld unless there is a paramount public interest in disclosure. I find that no such interest exists. Please note that the Department indicated in its April 3rd response, as described above, that “[s]ections of this report that have been redacted . . . pursuant to Exemption (c).” However, upon review of the file, it is my understanding that the Department did not provide any records in response to Mr. Ryan’s request, including redacted copies of the requested records. In it supplemental response to this office dated April 8, 2025, the Department indicated that the responsive records relate to “a POST Commission complaint that required an Internal Affairs Investigation on two (2) officers and a sergeant” and further provided the following: . . . Police Officers occupy positions of special public trust. By assuming their unique position of power and authority, Amesbury Police Officers conduct themselves in accordance with the laws they are sworn to enforce and behave in a manner that brings honor and respect rather than public distrust. All personnel involved in this complaint were found to have conducted themselves prodigiously in [an identified event] . . . . Internal affairs records may contain sensitive personal information and their release could violate the privacy rights of individuals involved, including employees, witnesses, and complainants. Under Mass G.L. c. 4 § 7(26) (c):

Janet L. Moyer SPR25/0932 Page 4 April 18, 2025 Section 2 of Chapter 253 of the Acts of 2020, records that contain confidential personal information or could lead to the identification of individuals involved may be withheld. Had these officers been found to have conducted themselves in a manner as to violate the public’s trust; the then the public’s right to know would outweigh the police department’s right to withhold. This is not the case as all officers involved in [the identified event] were exonerated. Releasing these reports to Mr. Ryan would further cause an invasion of privacy to them by identifying them, once again, and arousing suspicion to the content of their characters after having been cleared. The Department is advised that the Supreme Judicial Court has held that Exemption (c) “clearly and unambiguously states that the privacy exemption does not apply to an ‘investigation’ of law enforcement misconduct.” Eric Mack v. Dist. Att’y for the Bristol Dist., 494 Mass. 1, 12 (2024). Additionally, the Court held that the phrase “related to,” as used in Exemption (c), “is construed broadly.” Id. at 12 n.9. Specifically, the Court held that the exemption did not apply to records related to an investigation into whether two police officers had committed any crimes or violated their department’s use of force policy. Id. at 12. Exemption (c) did not apply even where the investigation concluded there was no basis to charge the officers with crimes. Id. at 6. In this case, where the requested records appear to be related to “a POST Commission complaint that required an Internal Affairs Investigation on two (2) officers and a sergeant[,]” I find the Department has not shown how the withheld records are not “records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation.” See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Consequently, the Department has not met its burden to withhold the records pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Ryan with a response to his 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: Timothy Ryan