Maryna Pashchenko v. Revere, City of - Police Department (SPR 20253520)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 12, 2025 SPR25/3520 Captain Thomas 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 Malone SPR25/3520 Page 2 December 12, 2025 [4] Current assignment or division (if applicable)[; and] [5] Year of birth (if disclosurable [sic] under public records law) and current age. Prior Appeals This request was the subject of prior appeals. See SPR25/3072 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 3, 2025); SPR25/3115 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 4, 2025) and SPR25/3271 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 20, 2025). In my November 20th determination, I ordered the Department to clarify whether it possessed additional records responsive to the September 14th request. The Department responded on November 21, 2025, providing a letter dated November 17, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. Pashchenko petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/3520, 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. The Department’s November 17th Response In its November 17, 2025 response, the Department provides numerous responsive records in redacted form. The Department identifies the individual records which have been redacted, and cites Exemptions (c) and (o) of the Public Records law for redacting the records. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c), (o).

Captain Thomas Malone SPR25/3520 Page 3 December 12, 2025 Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Pashchenko argues the following: The Revere Police Department has not complied with the Supervisor’s Order. They resent only my own documents from August 9. They refused to produce the required unredacted materials. They provided no explanation for the fabricated June 29 case number. They failed to produce the unredacted 911 recordings for August 18. They inserted unrequested and factually inaccurate investigative materials. They exposed my personal identifiers, in violation of the Public Records Law and the FIPA. . . . The Revere Police Department has not provided a single document required by your Order. They have avoided compliance, resent only my own materials, inserted an unrequested and falsified report, made contradictory statements about redaction, and refused to safeguard my personal information as required by law. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, Ms. Pashchenko reiterated her concerns in multiple emails to this office. In correspondence included with her appeal petition, Ms. Pashchenko states that “Page 5 includes only: Citizen Complaint 25-53401 (redacted). This is a personnel record of [the named employee] and was never part of my request.” Upon review of Ms. Pashchenko’s appeal petition, I understand she does not object to redactions made to Log Entry 25-53401 pursuant to Exemption (o) of the Public Records Law. 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.

Captain Thomas Malone SPR25/3520 Page 4 December 12, 2025 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 November 17th response, under Exemption (c), the Department explains the following: Log Entry 25-47121 and Report 25-47121 were originally redacted to include the redaction of dates of birth, telephone numbers, addresses, social security numbers, driver’s license numbers and other personal identifie[r]s. These records were reevaluated and redacted (in accordance to the Supervisor of Public Records Compliance Order) to only redact the social security numbers and driver’s license numbers of involved parties. . . . No other information has been redacted. Based on the Department’s November 17th response, where the Department has redacted social security numbers and driver’s license numbers from the records, I find that the Department has met its burden to redact such information pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Issues Outside the Scope of Authority of this Office Ms. Pashchenko is advised that the Office of the Supervisor of Records is statutorily empowered with the authority to determine the public record status of government records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10. Further, in compliance with the Public Records Law, the Supervisor of Records may only issue determinations where a violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 has been alleged. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a). Please note that requests to alter or correct records are outside the jurisdiction of this office. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a). Given that such issues do not fall within the authority of this office, I am unable to address such issues in this determination. Additionally, in its November 17th response, the Department states that “the Department

Captain Thomas Malone SPR25/3520 Page 5 December 12, 2025 will provide you with a copy of your 911 call (unredacted).” Correspondence included with her appeal petition further indicates that the audio recordings of the 911 call were emailed as attachments to Ms. Pashchenko on November 17, 2025. Based on the foregoing, the basis of Ms. Pashchenko’s claim that the Department “failed to produce the unredacted 911 recordings” is unclear. Ms. Pashchenko is advised that all petitions for appeal “shall specifically describe the nature of the requestor’s objections to the response or failure to timely respond.” 950 C.M.R. 32.08(l)(f). Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Ms. Pashchenko 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: Maryna Pashchenko