Maryna Pashchenko v. Revere, City of - Police Department (SPR 20253072)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 3, 2025 SPR25/3072 Captain Thomas J. Malone Records Access Officer Revere Police Department 400 Revere Beach Parkway Revere, MA 02151 Dear Captain Malone: I have received the petition of Maryna Pashchenko appealing the response of the Revere Police Department (Department) to requests for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Ms. Pashchenko submitted three requests for public records to the Department on August 19, 2025, September 14, 2025, and September 15, 2025. August 19th Request A copy of the official incident report generated from my 911 call on August 18, 2025, at [an identified street address]…I request the complete report, including the narrative, responding officer information, and any supplemental notes or documentation created with this incident. September 14th Request A copy of the original audio recording of my 911 call made on August 18, 2025 (the audio file itself, not a transcript) and [a] written status update and a copy of the record of my citizen complaint filed under log entry 25-52401. September 15th Request ... the following information regarding the officer referred to in a [Department] report as [an identified police officer]: [1] Full legal name of the officer (not only rank and surname)[;] [2] Current rank/title[;] [3] Years of service with the [Department] (date of hire)[;] 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

Captain Thomas J. Malone SPR25/3072 Page 2 November 3, 2025 [4] Current assignment or division (if applicable)[; and] [5] Year of birth (if disclosurable [sic] under public records law) and current age. The Department responded on August 20, 2025 and October 14, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s responses, Ms. Pashchenko petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3072, 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. Status of the Requestor 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). Therefore, Ms. Pashchenko’s interest in obtaining the records shall have no bearing on the public nature of the records. Current Appeal In her appeal, Ms. Pashchenko states “I am submitting this appeal under the Massachusetts Public Records Law (M.G.L. c. 66, §10) regarding the ongoing refusal of the [Department] to release the records I formally requested related to the incident at my residence on August 18, 2025.” Ms. Pashchenko also states, “in the official investigation report, it is written that on September 23, 2025, [an identified police officer] personally listened to the

Captain Thomas J. Malone SPR25/3072 Page 3 November 3, 2025 recorded 911 call…Therefore, this confirms that the 911 call recording did exist and was reviewed by the department while they were simultaneously denying its existence in their written public records response.” The Department’s August 20th and October 14th Responses Response to August 19th Request In its August 20, 2025 response, the Department stated it had “identified [two] responsive records in its possession, custody, or control” responsive to Ms. Pashchenko’s August 19, 2025 request as follows: 25-47121 Log Entry and 25-47121 Report. The Department further stated “the Department intends to withhold/redact the following responsive records due to the applicability of the following exemptions and reasons set forth below: Exemption (c)…the Department has redacted the personal information (date of births, social security numbers, driver’s license numbers, home address and biographical data). No other information has been redacted.” Response to September 14th Request In its October 14, 2025 response, the Department stated, “the following responsive records are NOT in the Department’s possession, custody, or control” regarding Ms. Pashchenko’s September 14, 2025 request for the “original audio recording of the 911 call made on August 18, 2025.” The Department further advised, “[t]he Metro North Regional Emergency Communication Center (MNRECC) is the Keeper of Records for all 9-1-1 audio calls and dispatcher/call-taker recordings for the Revere Police Department.” The Department provided the address for MNRECC. Further in the Department’s October 14, 2025 response ,with regard to Ms. Pashchenko’s request for “a written status update and copy of the record of my citizen complaint[,]” the Department stated “the Department intends to withhold/redact the following responsive records due to the applicability of the following exemptions and reasons set forth below: Exemption (c)…the Department has redacted the personal information (date of births, social security numbers, driver’s license numbers, home address and biographical data). No other information has been redacted.” Response to September 15th Request Finally, in its October 14, 2025 response, regarding Ms. Pashchenko’s September 15, 2025 request for “information regarding the officer referred to in a [Department] report[,]” the Department provided one document responsive to the request.

Captain Thomas J. Malone SPR25/3072 Page 4 November 3, 2025 Public Records; Agency Relationship Public records must be maintained and kept in a manner that allows access by the general public, as they are subject to mandatory disclosure upon request. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979). The Department is advised that where a public entity contracts with a third party to fulfill its public duties, and the public entity exercises control over that third party, an agency relationship is created. See Fifty-one Hispanic Residents of Chelsea v. Sch. Comm. of Chelsea, 421 Mass. 598, 607 (1996) (while subject to control of a public entity as a principal for purposes of performing public duties, private university is a public agent). Wherever a record custodian keeps original public records in a location other than the government building, the custodian has a duty to make the public records available in a location convenient to the general public for inspection and copying. Based on the Department’s October 14, 2025 response, it is unclear whether there is an agency relationship between the Department and the MNRECC. As such, I find the Department must provide additional information regarding the relationship between it and the MNRECC and the scope of any such relationship in order to determine whether the Department has met its burden under G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii) to provide records that are in the possession, custody or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. 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 sensibilities; (2) whether the materials sought contain intimate details of a highly personal

Captain Thomas J. Malone SPR25/3072 Page 5 November 3, 2025 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. With regard to records redacted under Exemption (c), I find the Department may properly redact social security numbers and driver’s license numbers from the responsive records. However, I find the Department has not met its burden to redact dates of birth, home addresses, or biographical data from the responsive records. Specifically, the Department has not demonstrated that the information constitutes intimate details of a highly personal nature nor how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. It is additionally uncertain whether the information is available from other sources. See PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. The Department must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Pashchenko with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and it’s 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. Ms. Pashchenko may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Maryna Pashchenko