Jill Vaglica v. Chicopee, City of - Police Department (SPR 20251399)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 2, 2025 SPR25/1399 Officer Anouson Souvannasane Chicopee Police Department Records Access Officer 110 Church Street Chicopee, MA 01020 Dear Officer Souvannasane: I have received the petition of Jill Vaglica appealing the response of the Chicopee 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 24, 2025, Ms. Vaglica requested, “[a]ll police incident, arrest, and blotter reports for [an identified] individual party. Please search between 1/1/2004 to 2/14/2013. . . . DOB: April 30th, 1986 . . . DOD: February 14th, 2013[.]” The Department responded on March 25, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. Vaglica petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/1399, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the Department provided a further response to Ms. Vaglica and this office on May 19, 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

Anouson Souvannasane SPR25/1399 Page 2 June 2, 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 her May 16, 2025 appeal petition, Ms. Vaglica states the following: I am appealing this denial because the Chicopee police department invoked Exemption A and Exemption C too broadly. . . . The denial is completely bereft of any specificity regarding what documents are being withheld and the nature of the objection. . . . [T]he Chicopee police department must not only cite to an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. None of this was done here. The Department’s March 25th and May 19th Responses In its March 25, 2025 response, the Department cited Exemptions (a) and (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested records in their entirety. In its further May 19, 2025 response, the Department provided one responsive record with redactions and updated its claims under Exemptions (a) and (c) in support of its redactions. 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.” 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

Anouson Souvannasane SPR25/1399 Page 3 June 2, 2025 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. In its March 25, 2025 response, under Exemption (a), the Department stated, “[t]he Chicopee Police Department intends to withhold the aforementioned requested records as they pertain to criminal record information. If desired, these records may be obtained via a court ordered subpoena or standard discovery proceedings through the Chicopee District Court.” In its further May 19, 2025 response, the Department provided one responsive record with redactions and advised, “[a]t the time of the initial request, [the Department] was not aware that [the individual identified in the request] was deceased. As a result, [the individual’s] criminal record information is not protected under Exemption A, which was cited in the exemption letter sent to Ms. Vaglica on March 25, 2025.” The Department therefore provided the following updated claims under Exemption (a) for redacting the responsive record: . . . [E]xemption [(a)] applies to records that are specifically exempt or prohibited from being released by statute because they fall under one of the following categories: 1. Victim & Victim Family information – prohibited . . . The Chicopee Police Department intends to redact the name and personal information of the victim identified in [an identified] incident report . . . as this information is protected under Exemption A, Part 1, which protects victim and victim family information. . . .” In light of the above, I find that it is unclear how “Victim & Victim Family information” as cited in the Department’s May 19th response, specifically or by necessary implication permits the Department to redact the responsive record. Please be advised that for Exemption (a) to apply, the Department must cite a statute and said statute must either expressly state that the redacted information is not subject to disclosure under the Public Records Law, or limit dissemination of said information to a defined group or individuals or entities. Consequently, I find the Department has not met its burden to redact the responsive record under Exemption (a). The Department must clarify this matter. 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

Anouson Souvannasane SPR25/1399 Page 4 June 2, 2025 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). 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 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 March 25, 2025 response, under Exemption (c), the Department stated, “[t]he Chicopee Police Department intends to withhold the aforementioned requested records as they contain personal information, which if released, would constitute an invasion of privacy and cause the involved individual embarrassment due to the highly personal of the information present in the records.” In its further May 19, 2025 response, the Department revised its claims under Exemption (c) for redacting the provided responsive record, and advised the following: The Chicopee Police Department intends to redact the personal information of [two named individuals] . . . which is included in [an identified] incident report . . . . [Two named individuals’] . . . personal information has been redacted to protect their privacy, the release of which would constitute an invasion of said privacy due to the highly personal nature of the information present in the records. Based on the Department’s May 19th response, in conjunction with its previous March 25th response, it is unclear how the redacted portions of the responsive record constitute intimate details of a highly personal nature nor how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. It is also uncertain whether any of the redacted information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. Further, the Department did not 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. Therefore, I find the Department did not meet its burden in redacting the responsive record under Exemption (c). The Department must clarify these matters.

Anouson Souvannasane SPR25/1399 Page 5 June 2, 2025 Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Vaglica with a response to her 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: Jill Vaglica