William Kim v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20252531)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 9, 2025 SPR25/2531 Christine O’Donnell, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel Boston Police Department 1 City Hall Square Boston, MA 02201 Dear Attorney O’Donnell I have received the petition of Jaehyun Kim appealing the response of the Boston 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 July 17, 2025, Mr. Kim requested the following records: [1] The complete, unredacted, police report filed by or naming [identified individual], or anyone else, that references Instagram Notes, “harassment”, or social media activity by me, [identified individual], occurring around April – June 2025[;] [2] Any mention of a “student liaison” or reporting party affiliated with MCPHS University who provided information or screenshots related to said social media activity[;] [3] The identity of the tipster, including role, title, and relationship to MCPHS University. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/2405 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 21, 2025). In my August 21st determination, I ordered the City of Boston to provide Mr. Kim with a response to his request. Subsequently, the Department responded on August 26, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Kim petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2531, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the Department provided a further response on August 28, 2025. 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

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/2531 Page 2 September 9, 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. Current Appeal In his August 26, 2025 appeal petition, Mr. Kim contends that he is “the named subject of the requested record” and further claims, “[d]enying me access to records directly concerning myself undermines both the intent of the statute and due process.” 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). The Department’s August 26th and August 28th Responses In its August 26, 2025 response, the Department denied Mr. Kim’s request and stated that it “can neither confirm or [sic] deny the existence of responsive records” as, “[d]oing so, would, in and of itself, reveal exempt information.” However, the Department noted that, “if such records were to exist, the subject matter would be exempt under privacy and would not be disclosed.” Here, the Department cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law and stated, “[p]ursuant to G.L. c. 66 §10 and G.L. c. 4 §7(26)(c), personal identifying information relating to specific individuals is exempt from disclosure in order to protect their privacy.” The Department further opined, “[t]he public’s right

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/2531 Page 3 September 9, 2025 to know the information does not outweigh the individual’s right to privacy. The information is not available from another public source.” Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, in its August 28, 2025 email to Mr. Kim and copied to this office, a representative of the Department stated, “[t]he Department stands by its response sent on August 26th.” Exemption (c) Exemption (c) permits the withholding of: 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). Second Clause – Privacy Analysis under the second clause of 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 clause 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 the second clause of 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 clause 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.

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/2531 Page 4 September 9, 2025 Based on the Department’s response, I find that the Department has not met its burden of specificity to withhold the responsive records under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Although the Department indicates that “personal identifying information relating to specific individuals is exempt from disclosure[,]” it is unclear how any withheld records, in their entirety, contain intimate details of a highly personal nature or how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. Further, 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. It is additionally unclear whether the Department possesses records responsive to Mr. Kim’s request. 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). The Department must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Kim with a response to his request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten 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: Jaehyun Kim