Thong, William v. Salisbury, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20260887)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 26, 2026 SPR26/0887 Sergeant Timothy Hunter Records Access Officer Salisbury Police Department 181 Beach Road Salisbury, MA 01952 Dear Sergeant Hunter: I have received the petition of William Thong appealing the response of the Salisbury 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 23, 2026, Mr. Thong requested a “video surveillance of [an identified March 15, 2019] incident[.]” The Department responded on February 24, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Thong petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0887, 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. 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. 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

Sergeant Timothy Hunter SPR26/0887 Page 2 March 26, 2026 The Department’s February 24th Response In its February 24, 2026 response, the Department denied Mr. Thong’s request, in its entirety, and cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law in support of its position. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Current Appeal In his March 13, 2026 appeal, Mr. Thong states that the responsive video footage concerns an “assault committed by an [an identified individual]” whom he states is an employee of a specific municipal police department located within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and further explains that he “requested the video to understand what occurred and to pursue accountability. . . .” It is my understanding that Mr. Thong does not contend that the identified individual is an employee of the Department. Additionally, Mr. Thong asserts that the Department’s response did not show “that disclosure of this . . . footage would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” under Exemption (c). He also objects to the Department’s claims that “it lacks the technology to redact the footage” and states that this portion of the Department’s response is, “not a legally recognized basis for withholding a . . . record.” 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). 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

Sergeant Timothy Hunter SPR26/0887 Page 3 March 26, 2026 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 response, a Department representative provided the following under Exemption (c): . . . I am required . . . to deny your request for the following reasons: Exemption [(c)] to the Public Records Law. . . . The records requested contain information, which, if disclosed, would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Specifically to this request, video surveillance footage is often kept private in cases involving witnesses, victims, or injuries. Our department has an ethical responsibility to protect individuals from unnecessary public exposure. . . . Witnesses also appear on this video who may have provided statements or attempted to help. Making any footage public could expose their identities, or may lead to harassment or retaliation. We also do not have the technological support for redacting or blurring identifiable individuals or actions within the independent, 2019 video that was obtained by a nearby business and we must ensure privacy protections are maintained. As a result, such information must be withheld under the law. Burden of Specificity; Access to Records Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be upon the records custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based . . .”); see also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511. Upon review, the Department has not explained how the withheld video records constitute intimate details of a highly personal nature, or how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. It is additionally uncertain whether any of

Sergeant Timothy Hunter SPR26/0887 Page 4 March 26, 2026 the responsive video is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. The Department also did not provide 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. Id. Moreover, the Department did not identify the records it possesses that are responsive to Mr. Thong’s request. To deny access to a record under the Public Records Law, a records access officer must identify the record, categories of records, or portions of the record it intends to withhold. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3)(c)(4). Consequently, the Department must identify the records, categories of records, or portions of records it intends to withhold under Exemption (c). It is additionally uncertain how the records cannot be segregated and non-exempt portions provided. 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 nonexempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). The Department must clarify these matters. The Department is further advised that public records must be maintained and kept in a manner that allows access by the general public, as they are subject to mandatory disclosure upon request. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-290. Where the Department explains, in addition to its claims under Exemption (c), that video responsive to Mr. Thong’s request “must be withheld” as a result of the Department’s lack of “technological support for redacting or blurring identifiable individuals or actions within . . . video[,]” I find that the Department has not met its burden in responding to this request. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Thong with a response to his 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: William Thong