Aguirre, Aleena v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20261370)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 27, 2026 SPR26/1370 Christine O’Donnell, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel Boston Police Department 1 City Hall Square Boston, MA 02201 Dear Attorney O’Donnell: I have received the petition of Aleena Aguirre appealing the response of the Boston 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 7, 2026 and March 10, 2026, Ms. Aguirre made two separate requests, “involving Boston Police Department Incident #242060110:” Request 1: [1] A complete copy of the Boston Police Department Offense/Incident Report associated with BPD Case #242060110 [2] Any 911 call recordings and related dispatch/CAD logs associated with the above incident reports [3] Any body-worn camera (body cam) footage recorded by responding officers related to BPD Case #242060110 and Incident Report I# 242059973[.] Request 2: [1] Any 911 call recordings associated with this incident [2] CAD / dispatch logs for police, fire, or EMS units responding to the address [3] Any Boston Fire Department incident or response reports related to the call [4] The Boston EMS Patient Care Report (PCR/ePCR) generated by Boston EMS Ambulance A8, which the police report indicates declared the victim non-viable at approximately 7:31 PM [4] Any Death Investigation Worksheet, Medical Examiner notification log, or similar documentation created when EMS notified the Medical Examiner [5] Any related dispatch, response, or incident logs associated with the above response Relevant Boston Police incident reports are attached for reference. 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

Christine O’Donnell, Esq SPR26/1370 Page 2 April 27, 2026 The Department assigned Request 1 the reference number #B000750-030726 and assigned Request 2 reference number #R001359-031326. Previous Appeal Request 1 was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR26/0898 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 27, 2026). In my March 27th determination, I ordered the Department to provide Ms. Aguirre with a written response. Subsequently, the Department responded on March 30, 2026 and April 13, 2026. Unsatisfied with the responses, Ms. Aguirre petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1370, 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. The Department’s March 30th and April 13th Responses In its March 30, 2026 response, the Department stated, “[t]he City of Boston does not hold records for EMS. Please reach out to them directly for those portions of the request.” Additionally, the Department cited Exemptions (c) of the Public Records Law to redact the responsive records. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). In its April 13, 2026 response, the Department stated, “[t]he Department provided a response that no records exist. The Department will conduct another review of its records to ensure that there are no records in response to SPR26/0898.”

Christine O’Donnell, Esq SPR26/1370 Page 3 April 27, 2026 Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Aguirre argues: [T]he records provided were significantly redacted, including key narrative and identifying information. To the extent these redactions were made pursuant to Exemption (c) (G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c)), I respectfully assert that the public interest in disclosure outweighs any privacy concerns in this matter. This request involves the circumstances surrounding a death investigation and the response of public safety agencies, which implicates a strong public interest in transparency and accountability. Additionally, the audio file provided appears to consist of dispatch or radio communications rather than the original 911 caller recording requested, further suggesting that responsive records may not have been fully produced[.] In a subsequent email to this office on April 13, 2026, Ms. Aguirre states, “[t]he Boston Police Department has stated that “no records exist.” However, this position is inconsistent with the records already produced and the contents of those records.” 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 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). 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.

Christine O’Donnell, Esq SPR26/1370 Page 4 April 27, 2026 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. In its March 30th response, the Department stated the following: The records are redacted to omit identifying information, including private medical information in accordance with exemption (c) of Massachusetts Public Records law. The public interest in disclosure of this information does not outweigh the privacy interest of the individual. G. L. c. 4, § 7 (26) (c). To the extent that the records contain medical information of a specifically named individual, the Department may permissibly redact those portions from the records. However, it is unclear how all of the Department’s redactions fall under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. In this case, the Department has not established how the “identifying information, including private medical information” constitute intimate details of a highly personal nature, nor how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. Further, it is uncertain whether any of this information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. The Department must also 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. The Department must clarify these matters. Records in Existence The Department is advised that the duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). Further, in accordance with the Public

Christine O’Donnell, Esq SPR26/1370 Page 5 April 27, 2026 Records Law, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). Based on Ms. Aguirre’s claims, in conjunction with the Department’s response, it is unclear if the Department possesses any additional records responsive to her request. The Department must clarify this matter. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Aguirre with a response to the 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. Ms. Aguirre may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Aleena Aguirre