Lindsey Santos v. Fall River, City of - Police Department (SPR 20251110)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 6, 2025 SPR25/1110 Amanda Matton Administrative Clerk Fall River Police Department 685 Pleasant Street Fall River, MA 02721 Dear Ms. Matton: I have received the petition of Lindsey Santos appealing the response of the Fall River 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 April 7, 2025, Ms. Santos requested an “[i]nternal investigation regarding fellow police officers [she] submitted a complaint on… [d]ate of [her] interview was 10/21/2022.” The Department responded on April 15, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. Santos petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1110, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the Department provided a supplemental response on April 24, 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. 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. 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

Amanda Matton SPR25/1110 Page 2 May 6, 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. Status of the Requestor; Reason for the Request 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 G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Ms. Santos’ interest in obtaining the record shall have no bearing on the public nature of the record. The Department’s April 15th and April 24th Responses In its April 15, 2025 response, the Department stated, “[f]urther clarification is required to complete your request: Please send a photo of your ID… Upon receipt of clarification, the Fall River Police Department will further respond to your public records request…” After Ms. Santos sent the Department a photo of her ID, the Department provided a responsive record on April 24, 2025, citing Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law in support of redacting portions of the interviews with identified officers from the record. Current Appeal In her appeal, Ms. Santos states, “[a] handful of the report is inaccurate to my statements and a lot is missing. Are you able to tell me that their censorship of interviews with officers involved is suppose[d] to be blocked? I feel like the privacy reasoning is invalid, considering it was my complaint against the officers. Wouldn’t I also be entitled to any evidence, including my recorded interview along with the other officers[’] interviews?” 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

Amanda Matton SPR25/1110 Page 3 May 6, 2025 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. In its April 24, 2025 response, the Department recited the language of Exemption (c) in support of the redactions. Based upon the update to Exemption (c) where the amendment states that this, “subclause shall not apply to records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation,” it is unclear how the requested records can be redacted. 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). Further, 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 light of the Mack decision, where the responsive record constitutes a report of an investigation into the alleged misconduct of a police officer, I find that the Department has not met its burden to withhold portions of the responsive record under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law.

Amanda Matton SPR25/1110 Page 4 May 6, 2025 Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Santos 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. Ms. Santos 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: Lindsey Santos