La Guerre, Nicole v. Gardner, City of- Police Department (SPR 20260105)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 27, 2026 SPR26/0105 Nicholas P. Maroni Deputy Chief of Police Gardner Police Department 200 Main Street Gardner, MA 01440 Dear Deputy Chief Maroni: I have received the petition of Nicole La Guerre appealing the response of the Gardner 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 8, 2025, Ms. La Guerre requested an identified police report. The Department responded on December 10, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. La Guerre petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0105, 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

Nicholas P. Maroni SPR26/0105 Page 2 January 27, 2026 The Department’s December 10th Response In its December 10, 2025 response, the Department cited Exemptions (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold the responsive police report in its entirety. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. La Guerre stated, “[w]hile I acknowledge that certain limited portions of an investigation may be exempt, the denial issued by the department constitutes an improper blanket denial and does not satisfy the requirements of M.G.L. c. 66 or 950 CMR 32.00.” 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

Nicholas P. Maroni SPR26/0105 Page 3 January 27, 2026 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. Under Exemption (c), the a Department official stated, “[i]n my review of the reports that occurred during the time frame you requested, I have discovered personal data that I believe fits into the criteria of Public Records Exemption (c). As a result… I am required to prevent any disclosure of such information in order to insulate the invasion on anyone’s privacy.” Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear how the Department may withhold the responsive record under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. In this case, the Department has not established how the responsive police report, in its entirety, constitutes 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 this information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. The Department must also provide 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 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 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.

Nicholas P. Maroni SPR26/0105 Page 4 January 27, 2026 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. 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. Under Exemption (f), the Department stated: As a matter of course, witness provided information is essential to law enforcement officials as we rely on the autonomy of a private citizen to report their personal concerns, observations, distresses or knowledge of criminal activity, and in return provide them with an assurance of confidentiality so they will speak openly and voluntarily in regard to these matters. Given these facts and the designated responsibility I have to protect one’s privacy, I am obligated to safeguard the disclosure of the names and other identifying information of victims, complainants and voluntary witnesses which may deter other potential witnesses and citizens from providing valuable information to law enforcement officials in future investigations.

Nicholas P. Maroni SPR26/0105 Page 5 January 27, 2026 Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear how the responsive police report may be withheld in its entirety under Exemption (f). While the identifying information of voluntary witnesses and complainants may be withheld, it is uncertain from the Department’s response whether the record contains confidential investigative techniques that would be prejudicial to an ongoing investigation if disclosed. The Department has also not demonstrated 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 public interest[,]” as required under Exemption (f), nor why identifying information cannot be redacted from the responsive record to preserve the anonymity or confidentiality of victims, complainants or voluntary witnesses. The Department must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. La Guerre 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. La Guerre 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: Nicole La Guerre