Valentino, Gianna v. Saugus, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20260813)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 18, 2026 SPR26/0813 Jeannette Meredith Records Access Officer Town of Saugus 298 Central Street Saugus, MA 01906 Dear Ms. Meredith: I have received the petition of Gianna Valentino appealing the response of the Town of Saugus (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 8, 2026, Ms. Valentino requested, “the police incident report from the same call to be released to me with proper redactions. Unit Police fire and EMS were dispatched to [an identified address…” Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR26/0364 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 13, 2026). In my February 13th determination, I ordered the Town to clarify whether the record could be redacted in order to protect the medical information of identified individuals. The Town provided a response on March 5, 2026. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Valentino petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0813, 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 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

Jeannette Meredith SPR26/0813 Page 2 March 18, 2026 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. The Town’s March 5th Response In its March 5, 2026 response, the Town withheld the responsive record under Exemptions (a), (c), and (f) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a), (c), (f). Current Appeal In her March 6, 2026 appeal to this office, Ms. Valentino objected to the Town withholding the responsive record under Exemptions (a), (c), and (f) stated, “I am filing an appeal to the town’s response. I believe it’s insufficient and did not respond to the issues identified in the determination…” 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, 154 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-546 (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.” 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

Jeannette Meredith SPR26/0813 Page 3 March 18, 2026 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 Town cited M. G. L. c. 111, § 70 to withhold the responsive record in its entirety. G. L. c. 111, § 70 provides in pertinent 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. ... Such records shall be in the custody of the hospital or clinic. Section ten of chapter sixty-six shall not apply to such records[.] G. L. c. 111, § 70. Under G. L. c. 111, § 70, the Town states, “[t]he report 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 Town’s response, it is unclear how the responsive record may be withheld under G. L. c. 111, § 70. Specifically, the Town 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 Town must clarify this matter. 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

Jeannette Meredith SPR26/0813 Page 4 March 18, 2026 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, “[t]his incident involved a death, and the report contains highly intimate, private, and 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.” Upon review, to the extent that the record contains medical information that relates to a specifically named individual(s), I find the Town may permissibly withhold such portions from disclosure under Exemption (c). However, it remains unclear how the record, in its entirety, constitutes medical information. Further it is uncertain why the record must be withheld in its entirety. The Town must explain whether the record can be redacted in order to protect the medical information of identified individuals. 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 Town must clarify these matters. Exemption (f) Exemption (f) permits the withholding of: investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of the public view by law enforcement or other investigatory officials the disclosure of which materials would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f). A custodian of records generally must demonstrate a prejudice to investigative efforts in order to withhold requested records. Information relating to an ongoing investigation may be withheld if disclosure could alert suspects to the activities of investigative officials. Confidential investigative techniques may also be withheld indefinitely if disclosure is deemed to be prejudicial to future law enforcement activities. Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 62 (1976). Redactions may be appropriate where they serve to preserve the anonymity of voluntary witnesses. Antell v. Att’y Gen., 52 Mass. App. Ct. 244, 248 (2001); Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 290 n.18 (1979). Exemption (f) invites a “case-by- case consideration” of whether disclosure “would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest.” See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90.

Jeannette Meredith SPR26/0813 Page 5 March 18, 2026 As a matter of course, witness provided information is essential to efficient and effective law enforcement. This exemption is intended to allow investigative officials to provide an assurance of confidentiality to private citizens so that they will speak openly and voluntarily about matters. Bougas, 371 Mass. at 62. Any information contained in a witness statement, which if disclosed would create a grave risk of directly or indirectly identifying the voluntary witness is subject to withholding. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Ret. Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 438 (1983). The disclosure of the names and other identifying information of victims, complainants and voluntary witnesses may deter other potential witnesses and citizens from providing information to law enforcement agencies in future investigations. Therefore, Exemption (f) will allow the withholding of the name and identifying details of any victims, complainants and voluntary witnesses, and where the individuals can be indirectly identified even with redaction. To properly claim that Exemption (f) applies, a custodian must demonstrate that the disclosure of the records would have a prejudicial effect on its investigative efforts. This can be accomplished by describing how the records fall into one of three categories. These are the three categories that justify withholding records under Exemption (f):  The records reflect an ongoing investigation, such that any information relating to an ongoing investigation that could potentially alert suspects or targets to the activities of investigative officials;  The records reflect internal techniques, procedures, or sources, such that their disclosure would prejudice not only ongoing, but future law enforcement efforts; or  Disclosure of records would cause a chilling effect, because the exemption allows investigative officials to provide an assurance of confidentiality to individuals so that they will speak openly about matters under investigation. Such records in this third category include: any details in statements that directly or indirectly identify a private citizen who volunteers as a witness; an entire statement if the identity of witnesses is known to the requestor; and information voluntarily provided by an individual or entity to aid in the investigation. Under Exemption (f), the Town states, “[t]his report relates to an investigation that remains open, incomplete, and unapproved. The Department is currently awaiting additional information from an outside agency. Disclosure of the report at this stage could compromise the integrity of the ongoing investigation and the confidentially of the investigative process.” Although the Town claims that there is an open investigation, it is unclear how the investigation remains ongoing and how the requested record is part of the ongoing investigation. Also, it is not clear how disclosure of the police report would disclose confidential investigative techniques, procedures or sources of information. Further, it is uncertain how the record, in its entirety, can be withheld under Exemption (f). Specifically, the Town did not provide any supporting information to demonstrate how disclosure of any segregable portion of the responsive records “would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that

Jeannette Meredith SPR26/0813 Page 6 March 18, 2026 such disclosure would not be in the public interest[,]” as required under Exemption (f). 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 Town must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Ms. Valentino 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. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Gianna Valentino Alisa McCarthy