McDonald, Daniel v. Suffolk County Sheriff's Department (SPR 20260864)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 24, 2026 SPR26/0864 Brigid Finnegan Executive Assistant to the General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department 200 Nashua Street Boston, MA 02114 Dear Ms. Finnegan: I have received the petition of Lucas Uhl, Esq., of the Boston Globe, appealing the response of the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department (Department/SCSD) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 3, 2025, Daniel McDonald, of the Boston Globe, requested, “[a]ny incident reports from the Suffolk Sheriff’s office produced for EMS/ ambulance trips for inmates at Nashua Street jail or South Bay house of correction during this calendar year. We are looking for any reports that detail the reason for the medical transport.” Prior Appeals This request was the subject of prior appeals. See SPR26/0046 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 21, 2026) and SPR26/0216 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 5, 2026). In my February 5th determination, I found that it was unclear how the Department is a covered entity as defined by HIPAA and how the withheld records constitute protected health information as contemplated by HIPAA and its associated regulations. I further found that it is uncertain how the records constitute medical information of a specifically identifiable individual. The Department provided a response on February 20, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Attorney Uhl petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0864, 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 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

Brigid Finnegan SPR26/0864 Page 2 March 24, 2026 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. 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 his appeal, Attorney Uhl asserts, “[t]he Boston Globe appeals SCSD’s February 20 response on the same grounds as its January 22 appeal and requests that the Supervisor of Record’s Office administer an in-camera review of the records.” The Department’s February 20th Response In its February 20, 2026 response, the Department stated, The basis of the appeal is that “SCSD is not obligated to disclose, nor does Mr. McDonald seek, the names or other personally identifiable information contained in the requested records. Nevertheless, the Public Records Law requires SCSD to disclose the records after appropriate redactions. As the Supreme Judicial Court has made clear, records that do not contain personally identifiable information are outside the scope of Exemption (c).” On February 5, 2026, the Department received a Appeal Determination from the Supervisor of Records which requires the Department to clarify how the records contain inmate details of highly personal nature, what types of records is possesses, how disclosure of the records would result in personal embarrassment, and why the records should be withheld in their entirety. The Department clarifies as follows: I. The Department Has No Responsive Records. The public records request seeks Department “incident reports” from the calendar year 2025 for “EMS/ ambulance trips” for inmates at our facilities. The Department does not possess any such incident reports. Therefore, we have no responsive records. II. Records Maintained by Medical Provider CPS. The Department is in possession of a document produced by our correctional medical care provider Correctional Psychiatric Services (“CPS”). The document is not an incident

Brigid Finnegan SPR26/0864 Page 3 March 24, 2026 report, and therefore is not responsive to this request. The CPS document in question tracks inmates that are sent out to the emergency room from our facilities. This includes transportation by EMS and by Department vehicle. Sometimes inmates need healthcare that CPS cannot provide in their clinics, but also does not require EMS. In these cases, inmates may be transported to the emergency room via Department vehicle. The Department has no document that shows EMS trips only. In addition, the CPS document in question contains very detailed and specific inmate medical information. In Camera Inspection In order to facilitate a determination as to the applicability of the Department’s claims to withhold the record, the Department must provide this office with an un-redacted copy of the document produced by its correctional medical care provider for in camera inspection. After I complete my review of the record, I will return the record to your custody and issue an opinion on the public or exempt nature of the record. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4). 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. Massachusetts 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 an un-redacted copy of the responsive record for in camera inspection without delay.

Brigid Finnegan SPR26/0864 Page 4 March 24, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Lucas Uhl, Esq. Daniel McDonald