Brigley, Raymond v. Worcester, City of (SPR 20260625)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 9, 2026 SPR26/0625 Michael Manning Records Access Officer Law Department City of Worcester 455 Main Street, Room 301 Worcester, MA 01608 Dear Mr. Manning: I have received the petition of Raymond Brigley appealing the response of the Worcester 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 7, 2025, Mr. Brigley requested, “all body and vehicle cams” related to a June 30, 2024 incident that occurred “around 7 am.” Previous Appeals and In Camera Review This request was the subject of previous appeals and an in camera review. See SPR25/3637 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 22, 2025); SPR26/0017 Determinations of the Supervisor of Records (January 16, 2026 and February 9, 2026). In my February 9th determination, I ordered the Department to provide Mr. Brigley with a response consistent with the findings of the determination. The Department provided a response on February 23, 2026. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Brigley petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0625, was opened as a result. Subsequently, the Department provided a supplemental response on March 5, 2026. Status of the 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 G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Mr. Brigley’s status shall have 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

Michael Manning SPR26/0625 Page 2 March 9, 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. The Department’s February 23rd and March 5th Responses In its February 23, 2026 response, the Department cited G. L. c. 41, § 97D as it operates through Exemption (a), as well as Exemptions (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold the responsive records in their entirety. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a), (c), (f). In its March 5, 2026 response, the Department reiterated its intention to withhold the responsive records under Exemption (c), as well as Exemptions (a) and (f) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a), (c), (f). Current Appeal In his February 24, 2026 appeal, Mr. Brigley stated, “I am formally asking that because of the clear intent of the WPD legal department to do what ever is needed at all costs to deny my right to access I am requesting that without further delay or further requests of compliance or granting additional time that the Supervisor of Records find the City in non-compliance and refer this matter to the Office of the Attorney General for enforcement…The City’s actions demonstrate a pattern of indifference to the Public Records Law and the Supervisor’s orders. I respectfully ask for an immediate referral to the Attorney General to ensure these records are finally released.”

Michael Manning SPR26/0625 Page 3 March 9, 2026 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). First Clause – Medical 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. 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). When analyzing a privacy claim, there is 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.

Michael Manning SPR26/0625 Page 4 March 9, 2026 In its February 23rd response, the Department asserted: Upon review of the requested footage, it shows individuals sharing medical information of a specifically identified individual with Worcester Police Department Officers. The Supervisor of Records has previously found that responsive records which constitute medical information of a specifically identified individual are exempt from disclosure pursuant to the first clause of Exemption (c). See SPR25/2077 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 31, 2025). In addition to the first clause of Exemption (c), the City also invokes the second clause of Exemption (c)…Here the responsive records show Worcester Police Officers responding to a family dispute, therefore the City must apply the second clause of Exemption (c) in determining the public status of the requested records. In its March 5th response, the Department asserts: With regards of the first clause of Exemption (c) to withhold the requested records, the requested body-worn camera in its entirety contains discussion of a specifically identified individual’s medical history. Any interaction that occurred between Worcester Police Officers and the parties present when the footage was recorded is interwoven with discussions of past medical incidents and history of an identified individual. Where the entirety of the requested footage contains discussion of specifically identified individual’s medical history, it is the City’s position that no segregable portions exist and therefore the City may permissibly withhold the requested footage in its entirety under the first clause of Exemption (c). With regards to the City’s claim of the second clause of Exemption (c), the City recognizes the inherent public interest in the operation and activities of the Worcester Police Department, however in this case where the requested footage falls within the Supervisor’s own definition of an intimate detail of a highly personal nature, it is the City’s position that the privacy interests associated with the withheld body worn camera footage outweigh any public interest in disclosure. Based on the Department’s responses and in conjunction with the previous in camera review, I find the Department has met its burden to withhold the body-worn camera footage in its entirety, jointly under the first and second clauses of Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Where the Department has met its burden to withhold the responsive records under Exemption (c), I decline to opine on the applicability of Exemptions (a) and (f) to the responsive records.

Michael Manning SPR26/0625 Page 5 March 9, 2026 Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Brigley is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Raymond Brigley Kevin Foley, Esq.