Vaglica, Jill v. Suffolk County District Attorney's Office (SPR 20260155)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 30, 2026 SPR26/0155 Elizabeth Schwab Records Access Officer Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office One Bulfinch Place, Suite 300 Boston, MA 02114 Dear Ms. Schwab: I have received the petition of Jill Vaglica appealing the response of the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office (Office) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 15, 2025, Ms. Vaglica requested “all photographs of [an identified individual].” On January 7, 2026, Ms. Vaglica clarified her request as follows: I am not requesting any grotesque or morbid pictures of the victim after he was deceased. I am requesting any pictures in possession of the DAs office of the victim while he was alive. I would assume that the DAs office would at least one regular photograph because sometimes they present a picture of the victim before he passed away to the jury for sympathy. The Office responded on January 7, 2026 and January 12, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Office’s responses, Ms. Vaglica petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0155, 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). 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

Elizabeth Schwab SPR26/0155 Page 2 January 30, 2026 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 Office’s January 7th and January 12th Responses On January 7, 2026, the Office cited Exemption (a) and Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold the responsive records. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a), (c). On January 12, 2026, the Office cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold the responsive records. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Vaglica contends: The request seeks a non-graphic photograph of the homicide victim while alive in connection with a 1990 Boston murder case. The request expressly excluded crime-scene photographs, autopsy images, or any graphic or disturbing material. … Photographs of victims while alive are routinely used by prosecutors in court proceedings and public memorialization. Disclosure would advance public understanding of the case and the administration of justice. 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).

Elizabeth Schwab SPR26/0155 Page 3 January 30, 2026 First Clause – Medical Information Medical information that is of a personal nature and relates to a specifically named individual may be exempt from disclosure. Brogan v. Sch. Comm. of Westport, 401 Mass. 306, 308 (1987); Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Ret. Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 438 (1983). Generally, medical information is sufficiently personal to warrant exemption. Globe Newspaper Co., 338 Mass. at 432-34. There is a strong public policy in Massachusetts that favors confidentiality as to medical data about a person’s body. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Chief Med. Exam’r, 404 Mass. 132, 135 (1987). 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. In its January 7th response, under Exemption (c), the Office asserted: The Office denies this request and withholds the responsive photograph. The requested record depicts the victim as found at the crime scene and is graphic in nature. Disclosure of such photographs would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and is therefore exempt from disclosure under the Massachusetts Public Records Law. Due to the graphic and highly sensitive nature of these images, the photographs are not subject to disclosure in response

Elizabeth Schwab SPR26/0155 Page 4 January 30, 2026 to public records requests, as release would be unsettling, alarming, or embarrassing to the individuals involved and would not advance the public interest. See G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a) and (c). See also Bougas v. Chief of Police, 371 Mass. 59 (1976); People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280 (2017). In its January 12th response, under Exemption (c), the Office asserted: …the Office’s determination applies to all photographs of the victim contained within the Office’s records. Under the Massachusetts Public Records Law, the Office is prohibited from releasing photographs of victims as disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy pursuant to G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Accordingly, the denial set forth in the attached letter remains unchanged, and no photographs may be released in response to this request. Upon review of her appeal petition, it appears Ms. Vaglica is not objecting to the withholding made under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Additional Records The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). Under the Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). In accordance with the Public Records Law, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). Based on issues raised in Ms. Vaglica’s appeal, it is unclear whether the Office possesses additional responsive records. Specifically, the Office must clarify whether it possesses “a non- graphic photograph of the homicide victim while alive.” To the extent that additional records exist, I find the Office must provide them in a manner consistent with the Public Records Law or identify an exemption that applies to withhold the records from disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b). The Office must clarify this matter. Conclusion Accordingly, the Office is ordered to provide Ms. Vaglica 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. Vaglica may further appeal the substantive nature of the Office’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Elizabeth Schwab SPR26/0155 Page 5 January 30, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jill Vaglica