Grant, Annemarie v. Quincy, City of - Police Department (SPR 20260978)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 1, 2026 SPR26/0978 Lieutenant David P. Pacino Records Access Officer Quincy Police Department 1 Sea Street Quincy, MA 02169 Dear Lieutenant Pacino: I have received the petition of Annemarie Grant appealing the response of the Quincy 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 March 3, 2026, Ms. Grant requested “all texts messages sent by cellphone by [an identified] badge number . . . on 2/17/2026[.]” In its March 6, 2026 response, the Department stated that Ms. Grant’s request was “overly broad” and requested that she “narrow or clarify [her request] to identify the public records [sought]. . . .” Subsequently, on March 6, 2026, Ms. Grant clarified the timeframe of her request and stated, “I want all texts messages sent to and from [an identified] badge [number] on the date 02/17/2026 from 9am- 8pm.” The Department responded to the clarified request on March 16, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. Grant petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0978, 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 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

Lieutenant David P. Pacino SPR26/0978 Page 2 April 1, 2026 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 her March 18, 2026 appeal petition, Ms. Grant characterizes the Department’s response to her clarified request as “an unlawful blanket denial.” She argues that the Department’s “reliance on Exemption (c) to withhold all messages is legally unsupportable” and further contends that “Exemption (f) was improperly invoked[.]” The Department’s March 16th Response In its March 16, 2026 response to Ms. Grant’s clarified March 6, 2026 request, the Department cited Exemptions (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested records in their entirety. 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. 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 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 March 16th response, the Department advised that it “intends to withhold these records due to the applicability of . . . Exemption (c)[.]” In support of its position, the Department states that “[t]his request seeks all text messages - which necessarily includes:

Lieutenant David P. Pacino SPR26/0978 Page 3 April 1, 2026 Personal communications[,] [f]amily matters[,] [m]edical or private information[,] [and] [c]ompletely unrelated conversations[.]” Upon review, to the extent that the records contain medical information of a specifically named individual, the Department may permissibly withhold such portions from disclosure. However, it is unclear how the withheld records, in their entirety, constitute intimate details of a highly personal nature or how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. Additionally, the Department is 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 v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979). In this case, where Department business may have been conducted by the officer identified in Ms. Grant’s clarified request through the use of a private cell phone, it is unclear whether any responsive records responsive were created in furtherance of Department business within the specified period using a private cell phone. The Department must clarify this. Further, the Department must identify the records in its possession that it is withholding under Exemption (c). 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); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3)(c)(4). The Department must clarify. 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, 378 Mass. at 290 n.18. 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.” Id. at 289-90. In its March 16, 2026 response, the Department stated the following under Exemption (f):

Lieutenant David P. Pacino SPR26/0978 Page 4 April 1, 2026 Due to the assignment of the detective in question, responsive text messages may contain investigatory communications relating to narcotics investigations, including sensitive investigative information and potential confidential informant information compiled out of the public view. Disclosure of such communications would risk revealing investigative methods, compromising ongoing or future investigations, and potentially exposing confidential sources, which would prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement. Accordingly, the Department is withholding the records in full. Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear how the records, in their entirety, can be withheld under Exemption (f). The Department states that the withheld records are associated with an ongoing investigation, but it does not explain how the withheld records constitute investigatory materials or how the withheld records pertain to the ongoing investigation described by the Department in its response. Further, the Department did not demonstrate how disclosure of the withheld records “would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest” as required to withhold records under Exemption (f). Consequently, the Department must explain whether the records can be redacted such that segregable portions can be provided. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90 (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). It is additionally unclear from the Department’s response which specific records the Department intends to withhold. The Department must identify the records, categories of records, or portions of records it intends to withhold under Exemption (f). The Department must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Grant with a response to her request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten 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: Annemarie Grant