Joesph Smith v. Somerset, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20253490)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 10, 2025 SPR25/3490 William Tedford Chief of Police Somerset Police Department 465 County Street Somerset, MA 02726 Dear Chief Tedford: I have received the petition of Joseph Smith appealing the response of the Somerset 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 October 22, 2025, Mr. Smith requested “[a]ny police reports, incident reports, or mugs shots concerning [an identified individual] from 1/1/2015 to present.” The Department responded on November 4, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Smith petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3490, 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

William Tedford SPR25/3490 Page 2 December 10, 2025 The Department’s November 4th Response In its November 4, 2025 response, the Department cited Exemptions (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold numerous identified reports. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Smith disputed the Department’s exemption claims and argued that “all non-exempt and segregable portions of the request records” must be released. 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). 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

William Tedford SPR25/3490 Page 3 December 10, 2025 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: [The identified reports] contained information and which is personal and contain intimate details of a highly personal nature… The records requested contain information which, if disclosed, would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and the privacy interests involved outweigh the public interests in the disclosure of that information… [Additional identified responsive reports] contained juvenile information. Please be advised, that the disclosure of juvenile reports shall only be released to a parent/legal guardian and/or a designee of the court. As a result, such information must be withheld under…Exemption (c)… [T]he records requested contain information which, if disclosed, would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and the privacy interests involved outweigh the public interests in the disclosure of that information. Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear how the Department may withhold the responsive records in their entirety pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. In this case, the Department has not established how the withheld records contain intimate details of a highly personal nature, nor how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. Further, it is uncertain whether any of the information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. The Department must also provide additional information with respect to the balancing test which examines whether the public interest in obtaining the requested information outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy. It should also 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). The Department must clarify these matters. 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 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

William Tedford SPR25/3490 Page 4 December 10, 2025 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: These records also contain victim/witness information and statements… therefore, redactions are appropriate to preserve the anonymity of voluntary witnesses. This exemption is also intended to allow investigative officials to provide an assurance of confidentiality to private citizens so that they will speak openly and voluntarily about such matters. Any and all information contained in a witness statement and/or within the investigation involving said voluntary witnesses, which if disclosed would create a grave risk of directly or indirectly identifying the voluntary witness who is subject to withholding. 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. Disclosure would so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public’s interest. Although the identifying information of voluntary witnesses and complainants may be withheld, it is unclear from the Department’s response how the responsive records may be withheld in their entirety under Exemption (f). It is additionally uncertain why the Department cannot redact identifying information from the responsive records to preserve the anonymity or confidentiality of victims or voluntary witnesses. See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90 (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Any non-exempt,

William Tedford SPR25/3490 Page 5 December 10, 2025 segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). The Department must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Smith with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its 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. Mr. Smith 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: Joseph Smith