Zuckoff, Eve v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20260722)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 16, 2026 SPR26/0722 Christine O’Donnell, Esq. Records Access Officer Boston Police Department 1 City Hall Square, Room 615 Boston, MA 02201 Dear Attorney O’Donnell: I have received the petition of Eve Zuckoff, of WBUR, appealing the response of the Boston 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 9, 2026, Ms. Zuckoff requested “copies of the Immigration Detainer Notices that ICE sent to BPD between Jan. 1, 2025 through the date this request is filed.” The Department responded on February 12, 2026, and assigned reference number R000680-020926 to this request. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. Zuckoff petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/0722, 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. 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 O’Donnell, Esq. SPR26/0722 Page 2 March 16, 2026 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. Zuckoff argues the following: We are seeking the language and form ICE sent to BPD. Any specific names and barred personal information may be redacted to avoid an invasion of privacy. Because I’m asking for the records with names redacted, there should not be a “blanket exemption for all records that investigative officials create or maintain,” per the Secretary of the Commonwealth in the Guide to Massachusetts Public Records Law. With that in mind, I’d also like to formally request copies of any written responses BPD has provided to ICE, in their native form, upon receiving these requests. I will file a separate FOIA request for these records if needed. Ms. Zuckoff is advised, a requestor may petition the Supervisor of Records only after a written request has been made to the RAO of the governmental entity that creates or receives the records. 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1)(a). Ms. Zuckoff may wish to submit a new request to the Department for the additional records she seeks. If Ms. Zuckoff is unsatisfied with the Department’s response to the new request, she may then appeal that response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). The Department’s February 12th Response In its February 12, 2026 response, the Department cites Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law for withholding responsive records. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). 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).

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR26/0722 Page 3 March 16, 2026 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 February 12th response, under Exemption (c), the Department argues that “all records associated with your request are being withheld under the privacy exemption to the public records law that applies to any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. G. L. c. 4 §7(26)(c).” Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear how the responsive records, in their entirety, constitute intimate details of a highly personal nature nor how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. It is additionally uncertain whether any of the withheld information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. Also, the Department did not provide additional information with respect to the balancing test, which examines whether the public interest in obtaining the requested information outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy. The Department must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Zuckoff 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

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR26/0722 Page 4 March 16, 2026 office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Ms. Zuckoff may further 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: Eve Zuckoff