Carrie Wienckowski v. Hampden County District Attorney's Office (SPR 20252871)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 10, 2025 SPR25/2871 Cynthia Payne, Esq. Records Access Officer Hampden County District Attorney’s Office 50 State Street Springfield, MA 01102-0559 Dear Attorney Payne: I have received the petition of Carrie Wienckowski appealing the response of the Hampden County District Attorney’s Office (Office) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 15, 2025, Ms. Wienckowski requested “… a copy of the police report pertaining to the unattended overdose death of [an identified individual].” The Office responded on September 26, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Wienckowski petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2871, 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

Cynthia Payne, Esq. SPR25/2871 Page 2 October 10, 2025 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, Ms. Wienckowski’s status will play no role in a determination as to whether the records should be disclosed or redacted under the Public Records Law. The Office’s September 26th Response In its September 26, 2025 response, the Office provided Ms. Wienckowski with a responsive record redacted pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Current Appeal In her September 30, 2025 petition to this office, Ms. Wienckowski contended that a court order naming her the identified individual’s personal representative entitled her to receive an unredacted copy of the responsive record. 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). First clause – Medical Medical information that is of a personal nature and relates to a specifically named individual is 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. Id. 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).

Cynthia Payne, Esq. SPR25/2871 Page 3 October 10, 2025 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. In its September 26, 2025 response, the Office stated: Please note that the report has been extensively redacted to withhold certain information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. See G.L. c. 4, § 7 (26)(c). General Laws c. 5, §7(26)(c) exempts from the definition of public records, “medical files or information … relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” … [T]he public records law does not take familial relationships into account. Accordingly, the report has been redacted before release. Should you wish to seek access to the unredacted version, you may be able to obtain a court order authorizing disclosure if you provide documentation to the Court confirming your relationship to [the identified individual]. To the extent the responsive records contain the medical information of a specifically identified individual, such portions may be redacted under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law.

Cynthia Payne, Esq. SPR25/2871 Page 4 October 10, 2025 However, the Office has not met its burden to demonstrate that the remainder of its redactions constitute intimate details of a highly personal nature, nor that disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. It is additionally uncertain whether the information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. Further, the Office 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. The Office must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Office is ordered to provide Ms. Wienckowski 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. Ms. Wienckowski may appeal the substantive nature of the Office’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Carrie Wienckowski