Lowell, Stephen v. Hull, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20260720)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 13, 2026 SPR26/0720 Sergeant Kevin Olson Records Access Officer Hull Police Department 1 School Street Hull, MA 02045 Dear Sergeant Olson: I have received the petition of Stephen J. Lowell, Esq., of Law Office of Stephen J. Lowell, appealing the response of the Hull 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 19, 2026, Attorney Lowell requested, “[a]ny and all log entries, journal entries, recorded 911 calls, Computer Aided Dispatch sheets, incident reports and any other documents pertaining to a request for a well-being check of [an identified individual] on December 26, 2024, including the same materials pertaining to any police follow-up in response to said request.” The Department provided a response on February 20, 2026. Unsatisfied with the response, Attorney Lowell petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0720, 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. See 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 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 Olson SPR26/0720 Page 2 March 13, 2026 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. The Department’s February 20th Response In its February 20, 2026 response, the Department withheld the responsive records under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Current Appeal In his March 2, 2026 appeal to this office, Attorney Lowell stated, “[t]he Hull PD response did not refer to a specific statute or regulation exempting the requested information…The HPD’s response that ‘medical information’ is not subject to disclosure under Massachusetts’ public records law is overbroad, and the HPD failed to provide sufficient explanation or analyses of my request or the exemptions, and also made no reference to specific information actually contained within the records warranting total exemption…” 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 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). Under Exemption (c), the Town states, “[m]edical information is one of the exemptions to Massachusetts public records law, therefore I cannot release these records for privacy reasons. Please see the Hull Police Policy on public records.”

Sergeant Kevin Olson SPR26/0720 Page 3 March 13, 2026 Burden of Specificity in Claiming Exemptions 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. Upon review, to the extent that the records contain medical information that relates to a specifically named individual(s), I find the Department may permissibly withhold such portions from disclosure under Exemption (c). However, it remains unclear how the records, in their entirety, contain medical information. The Department must provide additional information regarding how the responsive records are exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Law. Additionally, it is unclear from the Department’s response what records it possesses that are responsive to the request. To deny access to a record under the Public Records Law, a records access officer must identify the records, categories of records, or portions of the records it intends to withhold. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3)(c)(4). Therefore, the Department must identify the records in its possession that it is withholding under Exemption (c). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Attorney Lowell with a response to his 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. Attorney Lowell 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: Stephen J. Lowell, Esq.