Emma Rindlisbacher v. Taunton, City of - Law Department (SPR 20251210)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 14, 2025 SPR25/1210 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 Emma Rindlisbacher 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 2, 2024, Ms. Rindlisbacher requested, “... copies of all audio/video recordings of [an identified individual] in the booking room. The timeframe of the request is recorded between January 1, 2024 and December 12, 2024.” Prior Appeals and in camera review The requested records were the subject of prior appeals and an in camera review. See SPR25/0020 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 16, 2025); SPR25/0306 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 14, 2025); and SPR25/0617 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 18, 2025 and April 8, 2025). In my April 8th determination, I found that the Department had not met its burden to withhold the booking room recording, in its entirety, under G. L. c. 41, § 97D and G. L. c. 41, § 98F, as they operate through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. The Department responded on April 24, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. Rindlisbacher petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1210, 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 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

Lieutenant John P. Joyce SPR25/1210 Page 2 May 14, 2025 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. The Department’s April 24th Response In its April 24, 2025 response, the Department withheld the responsive record pursuant to G. L. c. 41, § 97D, as it operates through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. Current appeal Ms. Rindlisbacher’s May 1, 2025 appeal is based upon the fact that the booking room video should not be withheld in its entirety and requests that, “the responsive records should be released.” Exemption (a) Exemption (a), known as the statutory exemption, permits the withholding of records that are: specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). A governmental entity may use the statutory exemption as a basis for withholding requested materials where the language of the exempting statute relied upon expressly or necessarily implies that the public’s right to inspect records under the Public Records Law is restricted. See Att’y Gen. v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 54 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-46 (1977). This exemption creates two categories of exempt records. The first category includes records that are specifically exempt from disclosure by statute. Such statutes expressly state that such a record either “shall not be a public record,” “shall be kept confidential” or “shall not be subject to the disclosure provision of the Public Records Law.”

Lieutenant John P. Joyce SPR25/1210 Page 3 May 14, 2025 The second category under the exemption includes records deemed exempt under statute by necessary implication. Such statutes expressly limit the dissemination of particular records to a defined group of individuals or entities. A statute is not a basis for exemption if it merely lists individuals or entities to whom the records are to be provided; the statute must expressly limit access to the listed individuals or entities. G. L. c. 41, § 97D, provides in pertinent part: All reports of rape and sexual assault or attempts to commit such offenses, all reports of abuse perpetrated by family or household members, as defined in section 1 of chapter 209A, and all communications between police officers and victims of such offenses or abuse shall not be public reports and shall be maintained by the police departments in a manner that shall assure their confidentiality; provided, however, that all such reports shall be accessible at all reasonable times, upon written request, to: (i) the victim, the victim’s attorney, others specifically authorized by the victim to obtain such information, prosecutors and (ii) victim-witness advocates ... G. L. c. 41, § 97D. In its April 24th response, the Department asserted, Notwithstanding said determination [See SPR25/0617] the Police -- Department's position remains that the booking room audio/video is inherently linked to a related police report and other records which have been deemed exempt from public disclosure; and that disclosure of the same would contradict the intent and purpose of M.G.L. c. 41, section 97D (hereafter, "Section 97D"). Therefore, it is not a public record under exemption (a) to the Public Records Law, as "materials specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute." The audio/video records in question are connected to a report that has been deemed by the Supervisor of Records to not constitute a public record under Section 97D. Said statute requires police departments to "assure th[e] confidentiality" (emphasis supplied) of reports that fall within its scope, but releasing the requested booking room records would publicize the necessary existence of such a report, and material facts concerning it (thereby defeating its confidentiality), which is totally contrary to the intent of the statute. The booking room audio/video involves a continuation of the same police response as to which the body camera footage has been deemed exempt from disclosure under section 97D. The Police Department's position is that the location of the police department camera (i.e., body camera vs. fixed location in the booking room) is not a distinguishing factor in terms of

Lieutenant John P. Joyce SPR25/1210 Page 4 May 14, 2025 rendering the footage public record or non-public record. If the body camera footage is not public under section 97D then all of the footage related to the same police response must fall within the same category as exempt from disclosure under the statute. Additionally, averments made in state court filings (Attleboro District Court Docket No. 2434CR1891) would bring the individual targeted in your request within the definition of a "victim" of "abuse" as defined in Section 97D. Said statute states that "all communications between police officers and victims ... of such abuse shall not be public reports and shall be maintained by the police departments in a manner that shall assure their confidentiality." Under the circumstances, the booking room audio/video you are seeking constitutes communication with the police that the statute requires to remain confidential. We interpret section 97D to be a remedial statute, in that it is aimed at protecting privacy of individuals in certain situations which have been deemed by the legislature to require such protection. As such, it should be construed liberally to effectuate its remedial purpose, not narrowly. See Depianti v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc., 465 Mass. 607, 620 (2013); Batchelder v. Allied Stores Corp., 393 Mass. 819, 822 (1985) (both explaining that remedial statutes are to be construed liberally to effectuate their purpose, not narrowly). For these reasons the Police Department has not changed its position and will decline to release the records under exemption (a) to the Public Record Law. Upon review of the responsive record, I find that the Department has not met its burden to withhold the booking room recording, in its entirety, under G. L. c. 41, § 97D as it operates through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. 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). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Rindlisbacher with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten 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. Rindlisbacher may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within 90 days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Lieutenant John P. Joyce SPR25/1210 Page 5 May 14, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Emma Rindlisbacher