Randall Lucas v. Worcester, City of (SPR 20253232)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 18, 2025 SPR25/3232 Alexandra H. Kalkounis, Esq. City Solicitor City of Worcester 455 Main Street Worcester, MA 01609 Dear Attorney Kalkounis: I have received the petition of Randall Lucas appealing the response of the City of Worcester (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On May 14, 2025, Mr. Lucas requested the following: [1] [T]he log of all 911 calls received by Department of Emergency Communications (DEC) between 10:30 AM ET and 12:30 PM ET on 2025-05-08. For clarity, at least the timestamp, length of call, categorization and disposition of the call are sought along with any unique identifier. At least the last 4 digits of the inbound number is sought, but any sort of anonymized partial identified that would allow the same calling number within the produced dataset to be matched would be acceptable (for clarity, to minimize any redaction burden or privacy concern we are not requesting the full caller’s number, but would like to be able to see if the same number calls multiple times). The full calling number or specific textual notes on each call are not sought[;] For efficiency, if a record containing substantially all of the above already exists (such as a daily 911 log), we would accept that with gratitude. [2] [A]udio recordings of 911 calls between 11:00 AM and 11:45 AM ET on 2025-05-08 that request police or EMS assistance and that pertain to the vicinity of Eureka Street, Worcester[;] [3] [A]udio recording of COMIRS radio talkgroups known in Worcester as “Frequency 4” and “Frequency 11” between 10:30 AM and 12:30 PM ET on 2025-05-08. 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

Alexandra H. Kalkounis, Esq. SPR25/3232 Page 2 November 18, 2025 On May 16, 2025, Mr. Lucas stated, “[i]n light of the 2025-05-16 release by the City of Worcester of certain 911 audio recordings [Item] 2 of this request…is rescinded.” Previous Appeal The requested records were the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/2186 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 1, 2025). In my August 1st determination, I ordered the City to provide an estimated date as to when it intended to complete its review and provide the responsive records. The City responded on October 8, 2025. Unsatisfied by the response, Mr. Lucas petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3232, 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. See 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 City’s October 8th Response In its October 8, 2025 response, the City provided “responsive police COMIRS radio transmissions for ‘Channel 4’ on 5/8/25 between 10:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m.” Additionally, the City stated that “[t]here are no responsive records concerning ‘Channel 11’ for [the] date and time.” Finally, the City cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to redact records responsive to Item 1 of Mr. Lucas’ request. Current Appeal In his July 25, 2025 petition to this office, Mr. Lucas objected to the redactions made pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law.

Alexandra H. Kalkounis, Esq. SPR25/3232 Page 3 November 18, 2025 Exemption (c) Exemption (c) applies to: personnel and medical files or information and any other materials or date 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. In its October 8th response, under Exemption (c), the City argues: The requested records contain personally identifying information and contact information (personal phone numbers of private citizens) of individuals who contacted the City for the purpose of obtaining assistance; these individuals provided information in order to receive such assistance and/or report conditions in exigent circumstances, not with the purpose or intent of disclosing their identities or personal information to the public. With respect to the requested

Alexandra H. Kalkounis, Esq. SPR25/3232 Page 4 November 18, 2025 records, the City has determined that the privacy interests associated with the disclosure of portions of the requested record outweighs the public interest in the disclosure. Accordingly, the City has removed personally identifying information from the requested records… To the extent that the City has redacted personal phone numbers of private citizens, I find the City may permissibly withhold such portions from disclosure under Exemption (c). Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Lucas 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. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Randall Lucas