Donald M. Stapleton v. Dartmouth, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20251674)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 23, 2025 SPR25/1674 Nicole Perullo Police Clerk Dartmouth Police Department 1390 Tucker Road Dartmouth, MA 02747 Dear Ms. Perullo: I have received the petition of Donald Stapleton appealing the response of the Dartmouth 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 June 11, 2025, Mr. Stapleton requested a copy of an identified crash report. The Department responded on June 11, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Stapleton petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1674, 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. 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. 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

Nicole Perullo SPR25/1674 Page 2 June 23, 2025 Current appeal In his June 11, 2025 appeal, Mr. Stapleton states, “[t]he public records law clearly states that anyone can have access to a copy or certified copy of a crash report and furthermore, their exemption listed has no basis since the victims, which we represent the family of the deceased, names have already been released . . . to the public via a press release.” Status of the requestor; Reason for the request 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 G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Mr. Stapleton’s purpose in making the request has no bearing on the public status of any existing responsive records. The Department’s June 11th Response In its June 11, 2025 response, the Department identified one responsive record in its possession and cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold the record in its entirety. 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. 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).

Nicole Perullo SPR25/1674 Page 3 June 23, 2025 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 June 11, 2025 response, under Exemption (c), the Department stated the following: The Dartmouth Police Department has DENIED your request for [an identified] report . . . at this time. The record(s) requested are being withheld to ensure the privacy of the family involved. There is no public interest in the identifying information, which information could subject the family to embarrassment, harassment and/or undue public scrutiny. As a result, such information must be withheld under law following the guidelines of Public Record Law M.G.L. c. 66, § 10 and using: Exemption (c): . . . The records requested contain information which, if disclosed, would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and the privacy interests involved outweigh the public interests in the disclosure of that information. The Department’s response did not did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear how the withheld record contains 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 whether any of the information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. The Department also did not provide information with respect to examining whether the public interest in obtaining the requested information outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy. Id. Additionally, it is unclear how the responsive record may be withheld in its entirety under Exemption (c). It should be noted that any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). 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). The Department must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Commission is ordered to provide Mr. Stapleton with a response to his request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within 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.

Nicole Perullo SPR25/1674 Page 4 June 23, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Donald Stapleton