EXEMPT INFORMATION AND RECORDS REGARDING OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTING OF MICHAEL CONLON IN NEWTON

The following information and records concerning this officer involved shooting have been redacted or are wholly exempt from disclosure under the Massachusetts Public Records Law, G.L. c. 66, § 10; G.L. c. 4, § 7(26).

Certain information such as addresses and dates of birth for witnesses involved in the inquest that are contained in the witness lists and witness testimony summaries is subject to exemption (c) (medical and personal privacy) and has been redacted as disclosure of this information would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). . Medical information concerning a specific officer who sought medical attention has also been redacted as medical information subject to exemption (c). In addition, certain photographs produced as part of the investigation are subject to exemption (c) and have been withheld. These photographs contain information for which disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy, such as those containing addresses and personal medical information.

The photographs produced during the investigation also include sensitive and highly graphic photos of the body and the scene. These are exempt from disclosure under exemption (c) as medical information, and as public disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. There is a “strong public policy in Massachusetts that favors confidentiality as to medical data about a person’s body,” and the courts have found that this policy extends to information about a decedent’s body and medical condition. See Globe Newspaper Co. v. Chief Medical Examiner, 404 Mass. 132, 134-35 (1989). Likewise, the toxicology report prepared after analysis of Michael Conlon’s body constitutes private medical information under exemption (c).

Cell phone extractions obtained in the course of the investigation are further subject to the privacy exemption (c). Both federal and state law provide rigorous protection against the compelled production of the content of private electronic communications due to the high expectation of privacy that citizens have in their confidential conversations. These communications may only be obtained pursuant to a search warrant based upon a showing of probable cause. See, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2712 (providing broad protection for the compelled disclosure of the content of electronic communications); Carpenter v. United States, 138 S.Ct. 2206 (2018) (discussing protections afforded to the content of electronic communications). The public disclosure of the contents of an individual’s cell phone would therefore constitute a direct invasion of privacy.

Also exempt from disclosure are the case notes created by the assigned Assistant District Attorney. These records are subject to exemption (d) (deliberative process) as they constitute work product. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(d); see DaRosa v. City of New Bedford, 471 Mass. 446, 448 (2015).

Our investigatory file further contains documents from the Registry of Motor Vehicles relating to Michael Conlon’s driver’s license. These records are barred from disclosure pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2721.

Our case file for this matter further includes the autopsy report and other reports produced by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, which are exempt from disclosure by this Office under exemption (a). See M.G.L. c. 38, § 2; 505 C.M.R. 1.00 (“Disclosure of Autopsy Reports”).