Richard Rand v. Department of State Police (SPR 20251905)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 11, 2025 SPR25/1905 Allison Mondello Public Records Manager Massachusetts Department of State Police 470 Worcester Road Framingham, MA 01702 Dear Ms. Mondello: I have received the petition of Richard Rand appealing the response of the Department of State Police (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On May 30, 2025, Mr. Rand requested crash data related to a May 3, 2017 fatal accident involving a Jeep. The Department responded on June 13, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Rand petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1905, 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 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

Allison Mondello SPR25/1905 Page 2 July 11, 2025 custodian must provide the responsive records. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Rand states: The request was specifically for the Event Data (EDR), which is stored in the Air bag Control Module of vehicles, this data pertains to the operating systems of that specific vehicle, encompassing the steering, braking, acceleration, RPM’s of the engine, accelerator petal engagement, speed, seat belt usage of driver and front passenger at half second intervals, for the five seconds prior to a collision event. The report is retrieved from the vehicle by a trained individual utilizing a computer which contains specific software which is plugged into the vehicles onboard electronic connector. The report that is generated contains the name of the individual making the retrieval and the year make model and vehicle identification number of the vehicle, as well as the date of the retrieval. The Event data does not contain any names of persons involved, nor any address of anyone on earth, nor does it contain any medical information about anyone, or any personal information. The only personal information collected is whether the operator (un-named) was wearing the vehicle seatbelt, and whether or not there was a passenger (un-named) in the front seat and if that person was wearing a seat belt…. My Public Records request was specifically for data concerning a motor vehicle and its operating systems recorded in the air bag control module of that vehicle. My request should have been answered by the production of the Event Data report which only names the individual generating the report and the vehicle data. There is no personal data contained in this report of any person on earth. Therefore it is my opinion that my request was denied erroneously by the Collision Analysis and Reconstruction Unit. The Department’s June 13th Response In its June 13, 2025 response, the Department withheld responsive records under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. 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

Allison Mondello SPR25/1905 Page 3 July 11, 2025 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. Under Exemption (c), the Department states, “the Department deems the records and photographs sought to implicate matters of intimate detail of a highly personal and private nature. The Department asserts that the privacy exemption clause exempts from public disclosure information relating to and surrounding such tragic and sensitive matters.” The Department is advised that under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be on the custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption to withhold or redact 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. The Department’s response 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 records contain intimate details of a highly personal nature, or how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. It is additionally uncertain whether any of the information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. Also, 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. Further, the Department did not identify the records, categories of records or portions of

Allison Mondello SPR25/1905 Page 4 July 11, 2025 records in its possession that it intends to withhold from disclosure. To deny access to a record under the Public Records Law, a records access officer must identify the record, categories of records, or portions of the record it intends to withhold. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3)(c)(4). As a result, I find that the Department did not meet its burden of specificity in withholding the records under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Rand 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. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Richard Rand