Inbox, General v. Westford, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20261192)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 13, 2026 SPR26/1192 Michelle Wright Records Access Officer Westford Police Department 53 Main Street Westford, MA 01886 Dear Ms. Wright: I have received the petition of Anonymous Requestor (requestor) appealing the response of the Westford 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 31, 2026, the requestor sought, “. . . any publicly available police records, reports, or incident logs involving the following individual: [an identified individual] (approximately 26)[.] I am seeking records from the last 12 months that are accessible under Massachusetts public records laws.” The Department responded on April 1, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, the requestor petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1192, 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. 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

Michelle Wright SPR26/1192 Page 2 April 13, 2026 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 April 1st Response In its April 1, 2026 response, the Department cited Exemptions (c) and (j) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested records. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c), (j). Current Appeal In the requestor’s appeal petition, the requestor contends, “I am looking to see how this request is materially different and justifies a full denial under the cited exemptions that Westford listed. Additionally, I request that any reasonably segregable portions of responsive records be produced, as required under the public records law.” 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 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.

Michelle Wright SPR26/1192 Page 3 April 13, 2026 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 April 1st response under Exemption (c), the Department stated, “. . . the records you are requesting are a direct invasion of personal privacy.” Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear how the requested records contain 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 the withheld information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. Also, the Department 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. The Department must clarify these matters. Additionally, it is unclear how the records can be withheld in their entirety. The Department must explain whether the records can be redacted so that segregable portions can be 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 non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). Further, based on the Department’s response, it is unclear what records it possesses that it withheld from disclosure. 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 . . .”). Therefore, the Department must identify the records it has in its possession that it is withholding under Exemption (c). Exemption (j) Exemption (j) of the Public Records Law permits a records custodian to withhold or redact portions of records containing: the names and addresses of any persons contained in, or referred to in, any applications for any licenses to carry or possess firearms issued pursuant to chapter one hundred and forty or any firearms identification cards issued pursuant to said chapter one hundred and forty and the names and addresses on sales or transfers of any firearms, rifles, shotguns, or machine guns or ammunition

Michelle Wright SPR26/1192 Page 4 April 13, 2026 therefor, as defined in said chapter one hundred and forty and the names and addresses on said licenses or cards. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(j). The scope of the exemption is limited to restricting the public disclosure of the name and address of the individual. A records custodian may withhold an entire firearms record if the requestor knows with certainty that this particular record pertains to a specific address or individual. In this instance, redaction would be futile as it would not protect the identity of the license holder(s). See id.; see also G. L. c. 140, §§ 121-131P. In its April 1st response, the Department merely cites and describes Exemption (j) of the Public Records Law without any explanation of its applicability to the requested records. Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear what records it possesses that it withheld from disclosure under Exemption (j). Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be upon the records custodian to identify records being withheld and prove with specificity the exemption which applies. 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 . . .”). Therefore, the Department must identify the records it has in its possession that it is withholding under Exemption (j). Consequently, I find the Department did not meet its burden of specificity to withhold the requested records under Exemptions (c) and (j) of the Public Records Law. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide the requestor with a response to the 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. The requestor may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Anonymous Requestor