William Kim v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20252718)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 25, 2025 SPR25/2718 Christine O’Donnell, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel Office of the Legal Advisor 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: [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. It is my understanding that the Department assigned the request reference number R003650-071725. Previous Appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR25/2405 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 21, 2025) and SPR25/2531 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 9, 2025). In my September 9th determination, I ordered the Department to clarify its claims under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law and to identify the records it 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. SPR25/2718 Page 2 September 25, 2025 possesses that it intends to withhold. The Department responded on September 15, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Kim petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2718, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the Department provided a supplemental response on September 16, 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. 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. Kim’s interest in obtaining the records shall have no bearing on the public status of the responsive records. The Department’s September 15th and September 16th Responses In its September 15, 2025 response, the Department provided a responsive record redacted pursuant to Exemptions (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law. On September 16, 2025, the Department stated that it “stands by its response.” Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Kim argued the Department’s redactions are improper for the following reasons:

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/2718 Page 3 September 25, 2025 [1] I am the subject of the record – and another suspect is also named[;] [2] Witness confidentiality cannot be selectively applied[;] [3] My own privacy was already invaded[;] [4] Current internal affairs investigation heightens public interest[;] [5] The case was closed without charges[;] [6] Public interest balancing test favors disclosure[;] [7] Exemption (f) cannot apply blanket confidentiality[;] [8] No public safety threat – misinterpretation of context [9] Withholding functions as a cover-up[;] [10] Constitutional and systemic concerns: free expression, equal protection, and misuse of intelligence resources[.] In a supplemental email this office on September 16, 2025, Mr. Kim reiterated, “I am the subject of the report,” and took issue with the Department’s “improper withholding of ‘tipster’ identity.” In a further email to this office on September 17, 2025, Mr. Kim stated, “…there is a separate police report that I made back in late August of this year at the Boston Police Department. Although I do not have the physical copy of that report with me as of now… there are more police reports that lists [an identified individual] directly as a suspect in these matters.” In a series of additional emails on September 24, 2025, Mr. Kim stated, “…these reports are made in bad faith and are retaliatory… [T]he public must know what really happened.” 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). 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

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/2718 Page 4 September 25, 2025 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. Under Exemption (c), the Department stated: …[I]nformation is exempt from disclosure under Exemption C because the information relates to a specific individual and disclosure of this information would result in an unwarranted invasion of that individual’s privacy. The record contains the name of the individual as well as personal phone numbers and information that the individual conveyed to a police officer. This information has been redacted to protect the public safety of the individual… The redactions include witness names, phone numbers, and other personal identifying information… Therefore, the Department is redacting personal identifying information from the responsive records… There is no public interest in obtaining the redacted information. The interest of the public in obtaining this information does not outweigh the individual’s right to privacy… Based on the Department’s response, to the extent the responsive record contains the phone numbers and personal identifying information of private individuals, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, I find that the Department has met its burden to redact the responsive record under Exemption (c). Exemption (f) Exemption (f) permits the withholding of: investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of the public view by law enforcement or other investigatory officials the disclosure of which materials would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/2718 Page 5 September 25, 2025 disclosure would not be in the public interest. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f). A custodian of records generally must demonstrate a prejudice to investigative efforts in order to withhold requested records. Information relating to an ongoing investigation may be withheld if disclosure could alert suspects to the activities of investigative officials. Confidential investigative techniques may also be withheld indefinitely if disclosure is deemed to be prejudicial to future law enforcement activities. Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 62 (1976). Redactions may be appropriate where they serve to preserve the anonymity of voluntary witnesses. Antell v. Att’y Gen., 52 Mass. App. Ct. 244, 248 (2001); Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. at 290 n.18. Exemption (f) invites a “case-by-case consideration” of whether disclosure “would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest.” See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90. As a matter of course, witness provided information is essential to efficient and effective law enforcement. This exemption is intended to allow investigative officials to provide an assurance of confidentiality to private citizens so that they will speak openly and voluntarily about matters. Bougas, 371 Mass at 62. Any information contained in a witness statement, which if disclosed would create a grave risk of directly or indirectly identifying the voluntary witness is subject to withholding. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Ret. Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 438 (1983). The disclosure of the names and other identifying information of victims, complainants and voluntary witnesses may deter other potential witnesses and citizens from providing information to law enforcement agencies in future investigations. Therefore, Exemption (f) will allow the withholding of the name and identifying details of any victims, complainants and voluntary witnesses, and where the individuals can be indirectly identified even with redaction. Under Exemption (f), the Department stated: The Department redacted witness names and statements pursuant to Exemption (f) in order to maintain the confidentiality of witnesses… Disclosing the identity of witnesses may discourage individuals from communicating with the police. If individuals and police departments are not able to communicate freely, the investigatory process will be harmed. Identifying citizens who participate in the investigatory process will have a chilling effect on future law enforcement efforts. To protect the confidentiality of individuals and to prevent a chilling effect of future law enforcement efforts, the Department redacted the names of civilian witnesses because disclosure of this information would prejudice future law enforcement efforts; therefore, disclosure of the requested record is not in the public interest. Based on the Department’s response, I find the Department may properly claim Exemption (f) in withholding from the record the identities and any information that will directly or indirectly identify complainants or voluntaries witnesses. See Antell, 52 Mass. App. Ct. at 248

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/2718 Page 6 September 25, 2025 (redactions may be appropriate under Exemption (f) where they serve to preserve the anonymity of voluntary witnesses). Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Kim is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jaehyun Kim