Douglass, Joe v. Northampton, City of - Police Department (SPR 20260822)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 24, 2026 SPR26/0822 Julie Gaudreau Records Supervisor Northampton Police Department 29 Center Street Northampton, MA 02108 Dear Ms. Gaudreau: I have received the petition of Joe Douglass, of Discrepancy Report, appealing the response of the Northampton 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 23, 2026, Mr. Douglass requested the following: For each matter listed below, please produce the internal affairs/investigative file and final disposition records, including, where they exist: complaint/intake materials; assignment documents; investigative reports and attachments; interview summaries or transcripts; findings and decision memos; notices of discipline; suspension/demotion letters; retraining orders; use-of-force reviews; and any arbitration/settlement documents that modified discipline. Please also include any “last-chance agreement” or comparable agreement, where applicable, and any records reflecting whether the matter was referred to an outside agency or prosecutor. . . . Records requested (Northampton PD), as reflected in POST entries: 1. [A named individual] — sustained truthfulness matters (“Untruthful in investigation”) from Northampton PD employment, with discipline entries including Written Reprimand (May 2015), Suspension 6–29 days (Dec. 2017), and “Resigned/Retired in Lieu of Discipline” (Dec. 2017), along with related “Other / conduct unbecoming” entries described as “due to previous allegation.” 2. [A named individual] — 2018 matter with two sustained findings (criminal conduct and “Other / conduct unbecoming” described as “due to previous allegation”), with discipline including suspension 30+ days (and any other discipline reflected in Northampton’s records). 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

Julie Gaudreau SPR26/0822 Page 2 March 24, 2026 3. [A named individual] — Dec. 9, 2021 matter with a sustained criminal-conduct finding described in POST as “Domestic A&B on a Family/Household Member,” plus a related “Other / conduct unbecoming” entry described as “due to previous allegation,” with discipline listed as suspension 1–5 days. 4. [A named individual] — Nov. 15, 2015 matter with sustained “Other criminal conduct” (described in POST as “Domestic Disturbance”) plus a related “Other / conduct unbecoming” entry described as “due to previous allegation,” with discipline listed as “Loss of Time Off.” 5. [A named individual] — July 30, 2024 matter with sustained “Other / conduct unbecoming” described in POST as “alleged domestic violence and disorderly conduct,” with discipline listed as a suspension of 1–5 days (noted as 4 days). 6. [A named individual] — Jan. 31, 2012 sustained truthfulness matter (“Untruthfulness in investigation”), discipline: suspension 1–5 days; and March 18, 2015 sustained criminal-conduct matter described in POST as “Use of Alcohol on Duty/Policy violation of Criminal Conduct (OUI),” discipline: suspension 1–5 days. 7. [A named individual] — March 17, 2015 matter with sustained “Other criminal conduct” described in POST as “OUI Alcohol/reporting MV accident,” with discipline including suspension 30+ days and reassignment; and any related sustained truthfulness and/or conduct-unbecoming entries tied to the same incident as reflected in Northampton’s records. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR26/0431 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 24, 2026). In my February 24th determination, I found that the Department had met its burden to redact the identifying information of voluntary witnesses under Exemption (f), and the residential addresses of employees under Exemption (o). However, I found that the Department had not met its burden to redact records under Exemption (c) or to withhold records under Exemption (a) and G. L. c. 41, § 97D. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a), (c), (f), (o). Subsequently, the Department responded on March 10, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Douglass petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/0822, 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.

Julie Gaudreau SPR26/0822 Page 3 March 24, 2026 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. 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 March 10th Response In its March 10, 2026 response, the Department cited Exemption (a) and G. L. c. 41, § 97D for withholding three records, and Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law for redacting two others. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a), (c). 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, 545-46 (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.” 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. G. L. c. 41, § 97D All reports of rape and sexual assault or attempts to commit such offenses, all reports of abuse perpetrated by family or household members, as defined in

Julie Gaudreau SPR26/0822 Page 4 March 24, 2026 section 1 of chapter 209A, and all communications between police officers and victims of such offenses or abuse shall not be public reports and shall be maintained by the police departments in a manner that shall assure their confidentiality; provided, however, that all such reports shall be accessible at all reasonable times, upon written request, to: (i) the victim, the victim’s attorney, others specifically authorized by the victim to obtain such information, prosecutors and (ii) victim-witness advocates as defined in section 1 of chapter 258B, domestic violence victims’ counselors as defined in section 20K of chapter 233, sexual assault counselors as defined in section 20J of chapter 233, if such access is necessary in the performance of their duties; and provided further, that all such reports shall be accessible at all reasonable times, upon written, telephonic, facsimile or electronic mail request to law enforcement officers, district attorneys or assistant district attorneys and all persons authorized to admit persons to bail pursuant to section 57 of chapter 276 G. L. c. 41, § 97D. 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 and Personnel 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). While statutorily exempting personnel information from the expansive definition of public records, the Legislature did not explicitly define “personnel [file] or information.” G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Judicial decisions advise that the term is neither rigid, nor exact, and that the determination is case-specific. Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corp. v. Chief of Police of Worcester, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 5 (2003). The custodian’s classification of materials as “personnel information” is not conclusive. Wakefield Teacher’s Ass’n v. Sch. Comm. of Wakefield, 431 Mass. 792, 798 (2000). Instead, the nature or character of the documents, as

Julie Gaudreau SPR26/0822 Page 5 March 24, 2026 opposed to the documents’ label, is crucial to the analysis. See Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corp., 436 Mass. at 386. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (Court) has refined the analysis to be employed when considering the public record status of personnel records. The Court has held that personnel information that is “useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee” may be withheld pursuant to the first clause of exemption (c). Wakefield Teacher’s Ass’n, 431 Mass. at 798, quoting Oregonian Publ. Co.v. Portland Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 329 Or. 401 (1999). The Court further defined those records that may be withheld as personnel information to include, “employment applications, employee work evaluations, disciplinary documentation, and promotion, demotion, or termination information pertaining to a particular employee.” Wakefield Teacher’s Ass’n, 431 Mass. at 798. 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. Internal Affairs Files 21-5-IA, 15-11-IA, and 24-2-IA In its March 10th response, Under Exemption (a), and G. L. c. 41, § 97D, the Department argues the following: The records at issue fall squarely within the protections of § 97D. The three

Julie Gaudreau SPR26/0822 Page 6 March 24, 2026 Internal Affairs investigations concern allegations of abuse perpetrated by a household member and contain reports of domestic violence as well as communications between police officers and the alleged victim. Pursuant to the plain language of § 97D, such reports “shall not be public reports” and must be maintained in a manner that assures their confidentiality. The requestor does not fall within any of the categories of persons authorized by § 97D to receive such records. There has been no indication that the requestor is the victim, the victim’s attorney, or an individual specifically authorized by the victim to obtain this information. Accordingly, the Department is statutorily prohibited from releasing these records. Moreover, the domestic violence allegations and related victim communications are not incidental references within the Internal Affairs files; they are substantively and extrinsically intertwined throughout the entirety of each report. The investigative summaries, witness statements, officer statements, and interdepartmental communications all directly reference the underlying domestic violence allegations. Redaction would render the records functionally useless because the protected information is interwoven throughout the reports in their entirety. Because § 97D expressly provides that such reports “shall not be public reports” and mandates that they be maintained confidentially, the records are specifically exempt from disclosure under Exemption (a). The Department has therefore withheld the records in their entirety pursuant to Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. Internal Affairs Files 17-10-IA and 18-3-IA In its March 10th response, under Exemption (c), the Department argues the following: The Department’s application of Exemption (c) is narrowly tailored to protect highly personal and intimate information, including medical information, as well as the privacy interests of other involved parties such as victims and witnesses. These redactions are necessary to prevent an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The Department is not asserting Exemption (c) to withhold or redact the identities or information of the involved officer(s) as they relate to the law enforcement misconduct investigation reports. 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.”

Julie Gaudreau SPR26/0822 Page 7 March 24, 2026 The Department does not believe the recent amendment to exemption (c) was intended to abrogate the privacy interests of private, non-police officer individuals who are referenced in a police misconduct investigation report. The requested records contain medical and other highly personal information relating to specifically named and otherwise identifiable individuals. Disclosure of this information would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. In determining whether Exemption (c) applies, the Department has balanced the public interest in disclosure against the privacy interests at stake, as required by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Department of Agricultural Resources, 477 Mass. 280, 292 (2017). In doing so, the Department considered: 1. Whether disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities; 2. Whether the materials contain intimate details of a highly personal nature; and 3. Whether the same information is available from other sources. The records at issue include medical and mental health information, including diagnoses, treatment information, behavioral health assessments, and related observations concerning specifically named individuals. The entirety of certain forms is devoted to medical and mental health risks, conditions, and behaviors. Such information is inherently private and of the type that courts have consistently found to warrant protection. Disclosure of this information would reasonably result in personal or familial embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities and would reveal intimate details of a highly personal nature. This information is not publicly available from other sources, and its release would not meaningfully advance the public’s understanding of government operations beyond what can be provided through redaction. In addition, the records contain personal identifiers and sensitive personal information relating to victims, family members, and witnesses, including names, home addresses, telephone numbers, and detailed witness statements. The privacy interests of these individuals - who are not public officials - substantially outweigh any public interest in disclosure of their identifying and personal information. While Exemption (c) does not apply to records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation to the extent they concern the officer’s conduct, it continues to protect the medical information, intimate personal details, and identifying information of victims, family members, and witnesses contained within those records. Because the privacy interests at issue considerably outweigh the public interest in

Julie Gaudreau SPR26/0822 Page 8 March 24, 2026 disclosure, the Department has redacted or withheld this information pursuant to Exemption (c). In Camera Inspection In order to facilitate a determination as to the applicability of the Exemptions (a) and (c) claims made by the Department to redact and withhold responsive records, the Department must provide this office with un-redacted copies of the responsive records for in camera inspection. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4). After I complete my review of the records, I will return the records to the Department’s custody and issue an opinion on the public or exempt nature of the records. The authority to require the submission of records for an in camera inspection emanates from the Code of Massachusetts Regulations. 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4); see also G. L. c. 66, § 1. This office interprets the in camera inspection process to be analogous to that utilized by the judicial system. See Rock v. Mass. Comm’n Against Discrimination, 384 Mass. 198, 206 (1981) (administrative agency entitled deference in the interpretation of its own regulations). Records are not voluntarily submitted, but rather are submitted pursuant to an order by this office that an in camera inspection is necessary to make a proper finding. Records are submitted for the limited purpose of review. This office is not the custodian of records examined in camera, therefore, any request made to this office for records being reviewed in camera will be denied. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4)(c). This office has a long history of cooperation with governmental agencies with respect to in camera inspection. Custodians submit copies of the relevant records to this office upon a promise of confidentiality. This office does not release records reviewed in camera to anyone under any circumstances. Upon a determination of the public record status, records reviewed in camera are promptly returned to the custodian. To operate in any other fashion would seriously impede our ability to function and would certainly affect our credibility within the legal community. Please be aware, any cover letter submitted to accompany the relevant records may be subject to disclosure. Order Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide this office with un-redacted copies of the responsive records for in camera inspection without delay. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Joe Douglass