Adam J. Pires v. Massachusetts State Police (SPR 20252757)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 30, 2025 SPR25/2757 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 Adam J. Pires appealing the response of the Massachusetts 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 September 3, 2025, Mr. Pires requested, “BWC/dashcam of the 2 responding Mass state troopers and air wing mentioned in [an identified] police report from Hinsdale PD . . . .” and “. . . the after action police reports and call for service for this incident.” The Department responded on September 16, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Pires petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2757, 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. 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 SPR25/2757 Page 2 September 30, 2025 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 September 16th Response In its September 16, 2025 response, the Department stated that it, “conducted a diligent search . . . and located the following record(s): Body-Worn and/or Cruiser-Mounted Camera video(s)[,]” and further indicated “that the requested records are not subject to public disclosure pursuant to General Laws c. 4, §7, cl. 26 (c)[.]” 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). First Clause – Medical Medical information that is of a personal nature and relates to a specifically named individual may be exempt from disclosure. Brogan v. Sch. Comm. of Westport, 401 Mass. 306, 308 (1987); Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Ret. Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 438 (1983). Generally, medical information is sufficiently personal to warrant exemption. Globe Newspaper Co., 338 Mass. at 432-34. There is a strong public policy in Massachusetts that favors confidentiality as to medical data about a person’s body. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Chief Med. Exam’r, 404 Mass. 132, 135 (1987). 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).

Allison Mondello SPR25/2757 Page 3 September 30, 2025 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. In its September 16, 2025 response, the Department provided the following in support of withholding the responsive “Body-Worn and/or Cruiser-Mounted Camera video(s)[,]” as described above, under Exemption (c): In this instance, 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. See. e.g., Opinion of the Supervisor of Public Records. SPR05/063 (emergency 911 call of family member concerning suicide attempt of another family member not subject to public dissemination pursuant to privacy exemption of G.L. c. 4, §7, cl. 26 (c)). Additionally, upon review, the Department denies [the] request pursuant to G.L. c. 4, §7, cl. 26 (c). The Supreme Judicial Court has held that “medical ... files or information are absolutely exempt from mandatory disclosure where the files or information are of a personal nature and relate to a particular individual.” Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Retirement Board, 388 Mass 427, 438 (1983). See Also, Logan v. Commn. Dept. Industrial Accidents. 68 Mass. App. Ct. 533 (2007). Current Appeal In his September 18, 2025 petition to this office, Mr. Pires asserts, “. . . [t]hey are attempting to hide this behind HIPAA due to the fact that [an identified individual] ended up at the hospital. I don’t believe that applies here as it wasn’t a medical emergency.” Burden of Specificity; Possession, Custody, Control Upon review, I find that to the extent that the records contain medical information that relates to a specifically named individual, the Department may permissibly withhold such portions from disclosure under Exemption (c). However, based on the Department’s response, it is unclear how the withheld records, in their entirety, constitute intimate details of a highly personal nature, nor how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of

Allison Mondello SPR25/2757 Page 4 September 30, 2025 normal sensibilities. It is also not clear whether this information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. Further, the Department did not provide any supporting information with respect to examining whether the public interest in obtaining the requested information outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy. Id. 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). It is additionally unclear whether the responsive records may be “related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation.” G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Please note that the amended language of Exemption (c) does not permit its application to records “related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation.” Moreover, based on the Department’s response, it is unclear whether the Department possesses additional records responsive to the request. Specifically, it is unclear if the Department possesses records responsive to, “the after action police reports and call for service” as identified in Mr. Pires request. If the Department does possess additional responsive records, it must either provide the records, or cite an exemption to the Public Records Law, and explain with specificity how such an exemption applies to withhold or redact the records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv). The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). The Department must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Pires with a response to the 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. Mr. Pires may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within 90 days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Adam J. Pires