Ray Zhou v. Malden, City of - Police Department (SPR 20253633)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 22, 2025 SPR25/3633 Lieutenant Peter Mitchell Records Access Officer Administration and Operations Division Malden Police Department 800 Eastern Avenue Malden, MA 02148 Dear Lieutenant Mitchell: I have received the petition of Zhexian Zhou appealing the response of the Malden 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, Mr. Zhou requested, “[t]he dog owner’s full name[,] Contact information (address/ phone/email)[,] [and[ [a]ny available Animal Bite Report or Dog Owner Information Report” relating to a specific November 5, 2025 incident. The Department provided a response on November 24, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Zhou petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3633, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the Department provided a supplemental response to Mr. Zhou and this office on December 11, 2025. Status of the Requestor; Reason for the Request In his request, Mr. Zhou states that he seeks responsive records “[f]or the purpose of filing a civil claim regarding . . . veterinary expenses[.]” 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 Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Mr. Zhou’s purpose in making the request has no bearing on the public status of any existing 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

Lieutenant Peter Mitchell SPR25/3633 Page 2 December 22, 2025 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. Current Appeal In his December 9, 2025 appeal petition, Mr. Zhou objects to the Department’s November 24th response and states, “[w]hile I understand that certain PII may be exempt, I respectfully request that the Supervisor review this withholding.” He states that he seeks “the dog owner’s name and address as listed in the dog licensing records, which are . . . not exempt under the statute cited by the Department” and notes that this information “is required . . . to exercise [his] legal rights, as [he] must provide a mailing address to the court in order to file a civil small claims action. . . .” The Department’s November 24th and December 11th Responses In its November 24, 2025 response, the Department provided a two-page responsive report and stated, “[a] review of requested report [sic] revealed that it contain [sic] personal identifying information (G.L. c. 4, § 7 (26)(c)), and thereof this information is exempt from disclosure under the public records law and those records will be withheld.” In its supplemental December 11, 2025 response, the Department advised that it does not “file, process, secure or maintain [‘]Dog Licenses[’]” and provided a link to the Animal Control website for the City of Malden (City). The Department provided an additional link to what it described as an online application for dog licenses with the City and further provided the address of the City Clerk’s Office for application submission purposes. However, upon review, it is my understanding that the additional link provided by the Department is responsive to City Hall System’s “Secure Payment Portal[.]”

Lieutenant Peter Mitchell SPR25/3633 Page 3 December 22, 2025 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 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. Burden of Specificity Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be upon the custodian to prove with specificity the exemption which applies. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); see also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511. Accordingly, the Department did not meet its burden of demonstrating how information responsive to Mr. Zhou’s request is exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Law.

Lieutenant Peter Mitchell SPR25/3633 Page 4 December 22, 2025 Upon review, it is unclear whether the Department is claiming Exemption (c) to redact information, if any, from the record it provided in its November 24, 2025 response. Additionally, where the Department states in its November 24th response that “[personal identifying information] is exempt from disclosure . . . . and those records will be withheld[,]” it is unclear what responsive records, if any, are being withheld from disclosure (emphasis added). To deny access to a record or portion of a record under the Public Records Law, a records access officer must identify the record, categories of records, or portions of the record it intends to withhold. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3)(c)(4). Consequently, I find the Department must identify the information, if any, it redacted from the record provided in its November 24th response and explain with specificity how Exemption (c) applies to redact the record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b). Further, the Department must identify the records in its possession, if any, that it withheld under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law in their entirety. Id. Any non-exempt, 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. Zhou with a response to his 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. Zhou 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: Zhexian Zhou