Anonymous Requester v. Chatham, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20251474)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 5, 2025 SPR25/1474 Michael D. Anderson Chief of Police Chatham Police Department 249 George Ryder Road Chatham, MA 02633 Dear Chief Anderson: I have received the petition of an anonymous requestor (requestor) appealing the response of the Chatham 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 May 1, 2025, the requestor sought the following: [C]opies of any and all public records in [the Department’s] possession related to [an identified individual]. Records including but not limited to: [1] Body-worn camera footage[;] [2] Dashcam footage[;] [3] Incident reports[;] [4] Arrest records[;] [5] BAC results[.] [I]nclude any such records created or maintained by your department from the past two years. Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR25/1326 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (May 23, 2025). In my May 23rd determination, I closed SPR25/1326 in light of the Department providing the requestor with a subsequent response on May 14, 2025. Unsatisfied with the May 14th response, the requestor petitioned this office and this appeal, 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

Chief Michael D. Anderson SPR25/1474 Page 2 June 5, 2025 SPR25/1474, 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, § 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 May 2nd and 14th Responses In its May 2nd response, the Department cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law, to withhold the requested records in their entirety. In its May 14th response, the Department provided more information on denying the requested records pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Current Appeal In their appeal to this office on May 23, 2025, the requestor stated the following: The May 14 response from Officer . . . did not resolve or clarify whether I am entitled to the requested records. No report or footage has been provided or offered to me, nor has there been a determination as to whether the Department can withhold that material under Exemption C. Exemption (c) Exemption (c) permits the withholding of: personnel and medical files or information and any other materials or data relating

Chief Michael D. Anderson SPR25/1474 Page 3 June 5, 2025 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 may be 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. Globe Newspaper Co., 338 Mass. 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). 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 May 14, 2025 response, the Department stated the following: The request was denied in accordance with Exemption C (medical). To highlight the incident, our agency responded to a brawl at a local restaurant/bar. As a result of the altercation, several individual’s sustained injuries. Three individuals were transported to the hospital via ambulance and several others reported injuries

Chief Michael D. Anderson SPR25/1474 Page 4 June 5, 2025 sustained. In addition to the medical Exemption, criminal complaints were filed against four individuals based on the incident. However, the involved requested the charges be dropped prior to arraignment. . . Upon review, to the extent that the records contain medical information that relates to a specifically named individual, I find the Department may permissibly withhold such portions from disclosure under Exemption (c). However, it remains unclear how all the records constitute medical information or contain intimate details of a highly personal nature, or how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. Further it is uncertain why the records must be withheld in their entirety. 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). The Department must clarify these matters. Further, it is not clear what records the Department possesses that have been withheld from disclosure. The Department must identify the records, categories of records, or portions of records it intends to withhold, and explain with specificity how any exemptions apply to withhold the records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based”). See also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide the requestor 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. The requestor 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: Anonymous Requester