Quattrocchi, Maria v. Wakefield, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20260700)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 13, 2026 SPR26/0700 Sergeant Kevin McCaul Records Access Officer Wakefield Police Department 1 Union Street Wakefield, MA 01880 Dear Sergeant McCaul: I have received the petition of Maria Quattrocchi appealing the response of the Wakefield 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 February 13, 2026, Ms. Quattrocchi requested the following: [1] All Body Worn Camera (BWC) footage for any and all calls for service, station interactions, and lobby interactions involving [an identified individual] from August 1, 2025 to present[;] [2] All lobby surveillance footage for any in-station interactions during the same time period[;] [3] All CAD logs (full dispatch exports, not summaries), incident reports, supplemental reports, officer narratives, and supervisor review notes for all calls for service associated with [an identified individual] from August 1, 2025 to present[;] [4] All communications, notes, or documentation referencing: [a] G. L. c. 258E emergency harassment prevention order procedures[;] [b] Mental health or behavioral referrals associated with these calls[;] [c] Any supervisory review of emergency HPO facilitation decisions[;] [5] The department’s written policies in effect from August 1, 2025 to present concerning: [a] G. L. c. 258E emergency procedures[;] [b] Harassment and stalking response protocols[;] [c] Sexual assault reporting procedures[;] [d] Crisis Intervention / Behavioral Health referral procedures[;] [e] Report writing standards[.] 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

Sergeant Kevin McCaul SPR26/0700 Page 2 March 13, 2026 The Department responded on February 25, 2026. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Quattrocchi petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0700, 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. See 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. Status of the Requestor Please note that the reason for which the 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, Ms. Quattrocchi interest in obtaining the records shall have no bearing on the public status of the responsive records. The Department’s February 25th Response In its February 25, 2026 response, the Department withheld responsive Body-Worn Camera footage citing Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law and stated, “[a]s far as reports, call logs and station interactions we have on file, we have already provided you with these records. You were emailed records on 02/09/26, 12/12/25 and 09/23/25. The records sent already are what may be released to you under MA public records law. I have attached copies of 3 separate Wakefield PD policies covering the policy and procedure information you requested…” See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c).

Sergeant Kevin McCaul SPR26/0700 Page 3 March 13, 2026 Current Appeal In her February 26, 2026 petition to this office, Ms. Quattrocchi object to the withholding of the Body-Worn Camera footage under Exemption (c) and stated, “I am not seeking disclosure of unrelated third-party private information. I am seeking access to recordings documenting my own interactions with law enforcement, particularly those involving emergency judicial facilitation procedures.” Exemption (c) Exemption (c) applies to: personnel and medical files or information and any other materials or date 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. 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

Sergeant Kevin McCaul SPR26/0700 Page 4 March 13, 2026 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. Under Exemption (c), the Department stated, “[t]he majority of these incidents involve medical/mental health calls for service or investigations, and being the subject of the call does not provide you with an exemption or greater access to these records.” To the extent the responsive record contains medical information that relates to a specifically named individual, the Department may permissibly withhold such portions from disclosure under Exemption (c). However, the Department has not shown that the responsive record, in its entirety, constitutes intimate details of a highly personal nature, nor that disclosure thereof would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. Further, it is unclear how the record cannot 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), The Department must clarify this matter. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Quattrocchi with a response to her 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. Quattrocchi 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: Maria Quattrocchi