Anastasia E. Lennon v. New Bedford, City of - Office of The City Solicitor (SPR 20251481)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 9, 2025 SPR25/1481 Romina Moniz Administrative Manager/Central Records Access Officer City of New Bedford Solicitor’s Office 133 William Street New Bedford, MA 02740 Dear Ms. Moniz: I have received the petition of Anastasia Lennon, of The New Bedford Light, appealing the response of the City of New Bedford (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On April 9, 2025, Ms. Lennon requested the following: From NBPD, I request all summary complaint detail reports (including for officers who are no longer employed by the department) from January 1, 2015 to April 9, 2025. The data sits in the L.E.A. data technologies administrative database. Given multiple officers may be investigated for a single complaint, I request that the complaint detail reports are run and pulled by complaint (not by officer) to reduce potential redundancies in responsive records. The City responded on April 22, 2025, providing a fee estimate. Subsequently, I understand Ms. Lennon paid the fees, and the City provided a further response on May 15, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Ms. Lennon petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/1481, 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, 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

Romina Moniz SPR25/1481 Page 2 June 9, 2025 § 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. 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 City’s May 15th Response In its May 15, 2025 response, the City provides numerous responsive records in redacted form, and indicates that it is withholding others pursuant to Exemptions (a), (c), and (f) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4 § 7(26)(a), (c), (f). The City explains the following: The City is withholding (by redacting in full) 18 records pursuant to G.L. c. 41, § 97D, in accordance with G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). . . . The City is withholding (by redacting in full) 84 records as personnel information relating to specifically named civilian employees pursuant to G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). . . . The City is withholding (by redacting in full) 23 pending cases pursuant to G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f)[.] . . . The City has applied redactions from the records provided to the names of witnesses/ complainants, and their identifying information pursuant to G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f) (cited above). . . . The City has redacted names, dates of birth, personal home addresses, personal phone numbers, and other identifying information relating to specifically named individuals who are complainants and witnesses pursuant to G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Lennon argues the following: The city provided more than 300+ pages of the requested records on summary police misconduct/internal investigations, but included redactions, citing several exemptions. I am appealing the city’s application of exemption (c), for which the city stated it

Romina Moniz SPR25/1481 Page 3 June 9, 2025 withheld (by redacting in full) 84 responsive records . . . Massachusetts law establishes a carve out for law enforcement misconduct, which is the exact nature of these records. The individuals in these responsive records were or are law enforcement officers in the New Bedford Police Department who were investigated for alleged misconduct, or found to have engaged in misconduct. Upon review of the appeal petition, it appears that Ms. Lennon objects only to the City’s claims under Exemption (c), and not to the City’s other claims for withholding or redacting records. 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 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 May 15th response, under Exemption (c), the City argues the following: Exemption (c) permits a records access officer to redact “. . . materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute

Romina Moniz SPR25/1481 Page 4 June 9, 2025 an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy . . .”. . . . For the current records, the redactions were made to keep confidential the information listed therein relating to specifically named individuals (who are complainants and witnesses). This information, if disclosed, would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities, as the subjects in question are private citizens. The redacted information contains intimate details of a highly personal nature, as disclosure of it would allow for the opportunity of members of the public to invade the personal privacy of the individuals linked to the material. Finally, aside from the records in question, the redacted information is not available through other sources in the same way. As such, a privacy interest exists in the redacted information. Due to the fact that the public interest in obtaining the information in question does not substantially outweigh the seriousness of any invasion of privacy, as made evident by the fact that the public at large does not stand to gain any extra insight into the records by having this private information disclosed, the balancing test necessitates that the information be redacted from the records. As such, the City has done so. The City 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 in Mack 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. The Court in Mack explained that “the crime scene photographs, the home security videos, the still images, the names of officers and public officials, and the videotaped public employee interviews each ‘relate[] to a law enforcement misconduct investigation’ and may not be withheld under the privacy exemption.” Id. at 12. In this case, where the requested records involve “complaint detail reports” for police officers, I find it is unclear how the records are not “records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation.” See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Consequently, the City has not met its burden to withhold or redact the records pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Ms. Lennon 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. Lennon may further appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Romina Moniz SPR25/1481 Page 5 June 9, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Anastasia Lennon