Brian Murrihy v. Brookline, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20251503)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 11, 2025 SPR25/1503 Amanda Williams Records Clerk Brookline Police Department 350 Washington Street Brookline, MA 02445 Dear Ms. Williams: I have received the petition of Brian Murrihy appealing the response of the Brookline 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 6, 2025, Mr. Murrihy requested “the attachment section” of a specified report, and explained that “the attachment includes items such as: ‘(see attachment section for screenshot of text)’ ‘Sgt, K. Keaveney took pictures of the inside of the house which have been attached to this report[.]’” The Department responded on May 20, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Murrihy petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/1503, was opened as a result. Status of the Requestor 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 Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Mr. Murrihy’s status as a parent of a person named in the report will play no role in a determination as to whether the records should be disclosed or redacted under the Public Records Law. It is unclear if Mr. Murrihy may have a greater right of access to the responsive records outside the Public Records Law. The parties are encouraged to communicate to determine if there is another means affording Mr. Murrihy a greater right of access to the responsive records. 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 Williams SPR25/1503 Page 2 June 11, 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. 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 20th Response In its May 20, 2025 response, the Department states the following: [T]he Brookline Police Department [is] unable to fulfill your request for photos associated with C#2025-2328. Department is denying release of these materials in whole pursuant to exemption MOL 4 sec 7(26)(A) exemption (c) which applies to materials which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The photographs depict the inside one of the individual’s homes after the incident occurred. The family still resides at this location and the disclosure of responsive photographs would provide an intimate view into their private residence. Further several of the photographs include juvenile(s) involved in the incident. The disclosure of the responsive photographs/video would likely infringe upon the interests of the family to maintain a private residence. The public’s interest in the disclosure of these records does not outweigh the privacy interests of the family to maintain their residence without public scrutiny. Current Appeal In an email to this office subsequent to the opening of this appeal, Mr. Murrihy provides documentation of pending litigation and explains the following: A divorce is pending in this matter, and a Guardian ad Litem (GAL) investigation is ongoing. All to further my appeal point that I should have access to the information requested, as there is a clear relevancy as a parent and the requested

Amanda Williams SPR25/1503 Page 3 June 11, 2025 information is highly relevant to the GAL’s investigation. Pending Litigation 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. This office has reviewed the trial court’s docket and verified that the civil litigation, relating to the records at issue in Mr. Murrihy’s request, is still active and ongoing in the Probate and Family Court. See Brian Murrihy vs. Yueyue Murrihy (Norfolk Probate and Family Court Docket No. NO21D1613DR). In light of the pending litigation, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). It should be noted that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Brian Murrihy