Valentino, Gianna v. Saugus, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20260184)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 2, 2026 SPR26/0184 Christine Finocchiaro Records Access Officer Saugus Police Department 27 Hamilton Street Saugus, MA 01906 Dear Ms. Finocchiaro: I have received the petition of Gianna Valentino appealing the response of the Saugus 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 23, 2025, Ms. Valentino requested, “[p]olice log from December 16, 2025.” The Department assigned reference number 2025-1591 to this request. Prior Appeals This request was the subject of prior appeals. See SPR25/3850 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 31, 2025) and SPR25/3861 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 15, 2026). In my January 15th determination, I ordered the Department to explain with specificity how Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law applies to the redacted information. On January 16, 2026, the Department provided a further response. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Valentino petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0184, 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. 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

Christine Finocchiaro SPR26/0184 Page 2 February 2, 2026 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. Valentino contends: … The writer of the email seem[s] to be arguing her original position of [w]hy the town did not provide the records. The response just seems to be arguing their position. … The town did not provide the records and did not provide a detailed rationale for withholding six log entries in entirety. The town did not show how all redacted portions constitute medical information. The town did not show how the redacted information is exempt from disclosure under public records law for each call. … The Department’s January 16th Response In its January 16, 2026 response, the Department cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to redact the responsive record. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). 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). 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

Christine Finocchiaro SPR26/0184 Page 3 February 2, 2026 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 16, 2026 response, under Exemption (c), the Department asserted, “[f]our of the six fully redacted calls, including the call at issue, were redacted pursuant to Exemption C, as they fall under HIPA [sic] regulations due to their classification as medical calls.” Burden of Specificity Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be upon the records custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based . . .”); see also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511. See also 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).

Christine Finocchiaro SPR26/0184 Page 4 February 2, 2026 The Department did not meet its burden of demonstrating how the redacted information is exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Law. Although the Department cites Exemption (c) to fully redact four calls from the responsive record, it is unclear how all four redacted portions of the record constitute medical information. The Department must explain whether the record can be further redacted so that segregable portions can be provided. The Department is advised that any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). In its January 16th response regarding the remaining two calls, the Department asserts, “[t]he remaining two calls that were fully redacted as they involved a 911 hang-up and an eviction/property retrieval call.” The Department is advised that under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be on the custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption to withhold or redact records. Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear which exemption the Department is citing in order to fully redact the two calls. The Department must clarify this matter. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Valentino 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. Valentino may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Gianna Valentino