Valentino, Gianna v. Saugus, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20260788)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 19, 2026 SPR26/0788 Michael Ricciardelli Chief of Police Saugus Police Department 27 Hamilton Street Saugus, MA 01906 Dear Chief Ricciardelli: 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 January 7, 2025, Ms. Valentino requested, “... Dispatch call log relating to the incident in the attachment below … [which occurred at an identified address] around 2 pm on December 16.” The Department responded on March 5, 2026. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Valentino petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0788, was opened as a result. Identical Request Ms. Valentino submitted an identical request to the Saugus Fire Department. See SPR26/0358 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 18, 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 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

Chief Michael Ricciardelli SPR26/0788 Page 2 March 19, 2026 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 March 5, 2026 appeal, Ms. Valentino asserts, “[t]he Town has a pattern of consistently redacting all information, refusing to segregate portions of the record to then release what is not exempt. Therefore, I’m requesting an in camera review of the log entry so the SEC can opine on this matter. I demand that the agency fulfill its obligation to ‘segregate and make available any reasonably segregable portion of a record’ that is not exempt.” The Department’s March 5th Response In its March 5, 2026 response, the Department stated, “[t]he Saugus Police Department did not receive SPR26/0358 determination until Ms. Valentino’s email on 3/4/26 stating we have yet to respond. Upon receipt, the department immediately began preparing a response. The delay occurred because the original correspondence appears to have been sent to the Saugus Fire Department on February 18th, but the Police Department was not copied on that email and therefore did not receive the request at that time.” The Department cited Exemptions (a) and (c) to withhold the requested records. Exemption (a) Exemption (a), known as the statutory exemption, permits the withholding of records that are: specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute G. L. c. 4, §7 (26)(a). A governmental entity may use the statutory exemption as a basis for withholding requested materials where the language of the exempting statute relied upon expressly or necessarily implies that the public’s right to inspect records under the Public Records Law is restricted. See Att’y Gen. v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 54 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-46 (1977). This exemption creates two categories of exempt records. The first category includes records that are specifically exempt from disclosure by statute. Such statutes expressly state that such a record either “shall not be a public record,” “shall be kept confidential” or “shall not be subject to the disclosure provision of the Public Records Law.

Chief Michael Ricciardelli SPR26/0788 Page 3 March 19, 2026 The second category under the exemption includes records deemed exempt under statute by necessary implication. Such statutes expressly limit the dissemination of particular records to a defined group of individuals or entities. A statute is not a basis for exemption if it merely lists individuals or entities to whom the records are to be provided; the statute must expressly limit access to the listed individuals or entities. In its response, the Department cites G. L. c. 111, § 70, which provides in relevant part Hospitals or clinics subject to licensure by the department of public health or supported in whole or in part by the commonwealth, shall keep records of the treatment of the cases under their care including the medical history and nurses' notes and, in the case of a patient brought to a hospital by an ambulance service licensed pursuant to chapter 111C, a copy of the call summary set forth in paragraph (15) of subsection (b) of section 3 of said chapter 111C. These records may be handwritten, printed, typed or in electronic digital media or converted to electronic digital media as originally created by such hospital or clinic, by the photographic or microphotographic process, or any combination thereof. The hospital or clinic may destroy records only after the applicable retention period has elapsed and after notifying the department of public health, in accordance with its regulations, that the records will be destroyed. The department, through its regulations, shall establish an appropriate notification process. On the notice of privacy practices distributed to its patients, a hospital or clinic shall provide … G. L. c. 111, § 70. In its response, the Department states, “… Exemption (a), which applies to records that are specifically exempted from disclosure by statute. Medical records are protected under M.G.L. c. 111, § 70. The log entry at issue contains information that is medical in nature and includes sensitive medical details related to the decedent. As such, the Department believes the statutory protections afforded to medical records apply in this instance.” Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear how the responsive record may be withheld under G. L. c. 111, § 70. Specifically, the Department has not established whether it is a “hospital or clinic subject to licensure by the department of public health or supported in whole or in part by the commonwealth,” as required by the statute. The Department must clarify this matter. 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

Chief Michael Ricciardelli SPR26/0788 Page 4 March 19, 2026 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 is 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. Id. 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). In its response, the Department states “[t]his incident involved a death, and the report contains sensitive medical information. Disclosure of these details would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and could cause harm to the decedent’s reputation as well as embarrassment and distress to surviving family members. Furthermore, the release of these sensitive medical details would not meaningfully advance the public interest.” To the extent that the record contains medical information that relates to a specifically identified individual, I find the Department may permissibly withhold such portions from disclosure under Exemption (c). However, it is unclear if all the record, in its entirety, constitutes medical information. Further it is uncertain why the record must be withheld in its entirety. The Department must explain whether the record can be redacted in order to protect the medical information of the identified individual(s). 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 these matters. 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 (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Gianna Valentino