Maureen Germain v. Oxford, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20253768)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 5, 2026 SPR25/3768 Lysa Dell’Aquila Records Access Officer Oxford Police Department 503 Main Street Oxford, MA 01540 Dear Ms. Dell’Aquila: I have received the petition of Maureen Germain appealing the response of the Oxford 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 December 12, 2025, Ms. Germain requested, “…a recording from December 5 at 10:39 AM.” On December 15, 2025, Ms. Germain clarified her request, stating, “[t]he call that I am asking about was on Friday, December 5 and this was with dispatch and it was a business call. It was not a 911 call. The 911 call was on Monday, December 8.” Ms. Germain further clarified her request on December 17, 2025, stating, “…it is the recorded record itself from December 5, 2025 [at] approximately 1:29 pm I am requesting here.” The Department responded on December 15, 2025 and December 17, 2025. Unsatisfied with the responses, Ms. Germain petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3768, was opened as a result. On December 23, 2025, subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the Department provided a supplemental response. Status of Requestor 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, Ms. Germain’s status will play no role in a determination as to whether the records should be disclosed or redacted under the Public Records Law. 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

Lysa Dell’Aquila SPR25/3768 Page 2 January 5, 2026 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 her appeal petition, Ms. Germain contends: To clarify, the basis of my appeal is the Oxford Police Department’s refusal to provide the audio recording of my December 5, 2025 phone call with [an identified] dispatcher. … I am not appealing the redactions on the printed records I received. However, I do need to note that there are errors and omissions in the written narratives from both December 5 and December 8…. … Because the names were not written into the log, the printed record is incomplete. Chief refuses to fix the error. This is the reason the audio recording is essential. … If your Office is able to advise the Oxford Police Department to correct the December 8 narrative … I would be grateful. But to be clear, this is not the subject of my appeal. Ms. Germain 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 Ms. Germain’s claim of “errors and omissions in the written

Lysa Dell’Aquila SPR25/3768 Page 3 January 5, 2026 narratives” is outside the jurisdiction of this office. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a); 950 C.M.R. 32.00. Given that such issues do not fall within the authority of this office, I am unable to address such issues in this determination. Ms. Germain is advised that if she seeks edits or changes to the log and police report, she may wish to seek advice from private legal counsel. The Department’s Responses In its December 15, 2025 response, the Department stated, “I need to look to see if this is something we can release. We do not release 911 calls typically as there is confidential information.” In its December 17, 2025 response, the Department stated, “[c]urrently, the department is reviewing your request for the audio recording consistent with MGL 66 10 and applicable guidance from the Supervisor of Records. If the recording, or any portion of it, is determined to be exempt from disclosure, you will be provided with a written response identifying the applicable exemption(s), as required by law.” In its supplemental response on December 23, 2025, the Department cited Exemptions (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold the responsive record. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c), (f). Exemption (c) Exemption (c) applies to: 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).

Lysa Dell’Aquila SPR25/3768 Page 4 January 5, 2026 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 December 23rd response, under Exemption (c), the Department asserted: The dispatcher audio was withheld under MGL Chapter 4, Section 7(260(c), as its release would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Dispatcher and 911 recordings often include personal identifiers, emotional content, and sensitive information involving both the caller and third parties. Releasing the raw audio would disclose significantly more personal detail than is reflected in the written records we’ve already provided to Ms. Germain. Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear how the responsive record contains intimate details of a highly personal nature or how disclosure of such information would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. It is additionally uncertain whether any of the information is available from other sources. The Department also did not provide additional information with respect to the balancing test which examines whether the public interest in obtaining this information outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. The Department must clarify these matters. Additionally, it is unclear how the record can be withheld in its entirety. The Department must explain whether the record can be redacted so that segregable portions can be provided. 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). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). 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).

Lysa Dell’Aquila SPR25/3768 Page 5 January 5, 2026 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 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, 378 Mass. at 281, 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. To properly claim that Exemption (f) applies, a custodian must demonstrate that the disclosure of the records would have a prejudicial effect on its investigative efforts. This can be accomplished by describing how the records fall into one of three categories. These are the three categories that justify withholding records under Exemption (f):  The records reflect an ongoing investigation, such that any information relating to an ongoing investigation that could potentially alert suspects or targets to the activities of investigative officials;  The records reflect internal techniques, procedures, or sources, such that their disclosure would prejudice not only ongoing, but future law enforcement efforts; or  Disclosure of records would cause a chilling effect, because the exemption allows investigative officials to provide an assurance of confidentiality to individuals so that they will speak openly about matters under investigation. Such records in this third category include: any details in statements that directly or indirectly identify a private citizen who volunteers as a witness; an entire statement if the identity of witnesses is known to the requestor; and information voluntarily provided by an individual or entity to aid in the investigation. In its December 23rd response, under Exemption (f), the Department asserted: The recording was also withheld under MGL Chapter 4, Section 7(26)(f), because it contains investigatory material created in connection with a police response and subsequent review of reported incidents. Dispatcher audio is used to evaluate information received and determine the appropriate response. This exemption applies regardless of whether criminal charges result and is intended to protect the integrity of that process. Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear how the record, in its entirety, can be withheld under Exemption (f). It is additionally unclear from the Department’s response whether the record contains confidential investigative techniques. The Department also did not demonstrate how disclosure of any segregable portion of the responsive record “would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the

Lysa Dell’Aquila SPR25/3768 Page 6 January 5, 2026 public interest[,]” as required under Exemption (f). Reinstein, 378 Mass. 289-290 (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Germain 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. Ms. Germain may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Maureen Germain