Judith Reilly v. Salem, City of - Police Department (SPR 20253526)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 12, 2025 SPR25/3526 Ann Marie Greene Principal Clerk Support Services – Records Division Salem Police Department 95 Margin Street Salem, MA 01970 Dear Ms. Greene: I have received the petition of Judith Reilly appealing the response of the Salem 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 November 23, 2025, Ms. Reilly requested “all publicly available records, including the incident report, relating to a fraud experienced by the Salem Housing Authority recently.” The Department responded on November 25, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. Reilly petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/3526, 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 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

Ann Marie Greene SPR25/3526 Page 2 December 12, 2025 custodian must provide the responsive records. The Department’s November 25th Response In its November 25, 2025 response, the Department stated “[p]lease see the attached report that we found in our RMA (Records Management System) requested that was pending distribution. The report we are leasing has been redacted per G.L. c 4 sec. 7, cl 26(c) (privacy exemption).” The Department further stated, “[n]o other information is being released at this time per Exemption F (Investigatory) as this case is still an active criminal investigation and Exemption A (Statutory Exemption) as no other information is yet public record per the statute.” Current Appeal In her appeal, Ms. Reilly states “I am writing to appeal redactions made to a police incident report.” It appears Ms. Reilly is not contesting the withholding of records under Exemptions (a) and (f) 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. 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.

Ann Marie Greene SPR25/3526 Page 3 December 12, 2025 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 25, 2025 response, the Department stated, “[t]he report we are releasing has been redacted per G.L. c. 4 sec. 7, cl 26(c) (privacy exemption) due to the sensitive nature of these records as information the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy (such as date of birth, phone numbers, license numbers issued by the RMV, etc.) and does not include any possible juvenile or medical information of parties/persons that may have been a part of the incident (other than what you are entitled to under Mass. Public Records Law).” With the exception of license numbers which may be withheld under Exemption (c), it is unclear how date of birth 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 same information is available from other sources. See PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. Further, the Department must advise if the phone numbers are personal or business related. The Department must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Reilly 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. Reilly 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: Judith Reilly