VIA EMAIL ONLY

May 15, 2026

Marc Gursky, Esquire

Frank J. Milos, Jr., Esquire

Dear Attorney Gursky and Attorney Milos:

We have completed our investigation into the Access to Public Records Act (“APRA”) Complaint filed by Attorney Marc Gursky (“Complainant”) on behalf of Teamsters Local 251 against the City of Pawtucket (“City”). For the reasons set forth herein, we find that the City violated the APRA.

The Complainant initially asserts that the City improperly denied its request for incident reports.[1] It argues that the disclosure of these records would not rise to the level of an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and, even if it did, appropriate redactions could be made. It further argues that any personal privacy interest is outweighed by the public interest in the records because the reports are relevant to allegations of civil rights violations by the Pawtucket Police Department and a labor dispute. It additionally asserts that the City improperly denied its request for arrest reports and challenges the “on-going” status of the subject of the reports.[2]

The Complainant further asserts that the City improperly denied its request for call logs, including related dispatch and radio transmissions, on the basis that they involved incidents that did not result in arrest. It argues that the public interest in these logs outweighs the privacy interest for the same reasons as stated supra.[3] It additionally asserts that the City improperly redacted or denied requests for call and dispatch logs on the basis that they were confidential pursuant to the Emergency 911 Telephone Number Act. It argues that only 911 call recordings are exempt, not call logs.[4] It further asserts that the City improperly redacted additional call logs, despite those logs not being identified as part of a 911 call.[5] It also asserts that the City improperly denied requests for call logs on the basis that disclosure could interfere with investigations and challenges the purported “on-going” status of the subject of the call logs.[6]

The Complainant further asserts that the City failed to respond to three APRA requests submitted on July 13, 2022. It similarly asserts that the City failed to disclose, deny, or otherwise address his requests for documents related to a slew of incident calls. It also asserts that the City failed to adequately respond to his requests for dispatch calls, AUTOCAD incidents, radio transmissions, electronic communications and police details. And finally, it requests that the City provide the “dispatch and audio calls related to records already provided by the City, as well as those addressed in this Complaint.”

·         The City’s Response

The City submitted a substantive response through Assistant City Solicitor Lisette M. Gomes, Esq. Regarding the withheld incident reports, the City argues that it properly withheld these reports as they involved incidents in which no arrests were made and relies on opinions from this Office finding, in the circumstances of those particular cases, that disclosure of records related to incidents that did not result in arrest would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. As to the three arrest reports the Complainant asserts were withheld, the City states that it did timely provide the Complainant with these reports.

The City further argues that it properly redacted call logs requested by the Complainant to prevent the disclosure of personally identifiable information. It further states that it did in fact deny all requests for call logs related to 911 calls because the “City’s position is that if the audio is exempt from disclosure, then so would any call/dispatch log.”

The City also argues that it did provide the Complainant with responses to its three APRA requests that it alleges were never answered. The City invoked extensions, but provided the Complainant with responses to its requests within the time required. Regarding the Complainant’s requests for AUTOCAD incidents, staff briefings, and police details, the City responded that it was not in possession of any responsive documents. Regarding the Complainant’s requests for radio transmission and electronic communications, the City responded that it was “still unsure exactly what the request was for.” It stated that it had requested several times for the Complainant to reframe its request and provide clarity, yet it failed to do so.

The APRA provides that all records maintained by public bodies are subject to public disclosure unless the document falls within one of the twenty-eight (28) enumerated exemptions. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-2(4)(A)-(BB). Among other exemptions, the APRA permits nondisclosure of certain records maintained by law enforcement agencies if disclosure “could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy[.]” R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-2(4)(D)(c). The plain language of this provision contemplates a “balancing test” whereby the public interest in disclosure is weighed against any privacy interest. Consequently, we must consider the “public interest” versus the “privacy interest” to determine whether the disclosure of the requested records, in whole or in part, “[c]ould reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-2(4)(D)(c). Public interest under the APRA (as under the similar Freedom of Information Act) pertains to whether disclosure of the requested information “sheds light” on how government operates. See U.S. Dep’t of Just. v. Reps. Comm. For Freedom of Press, 489 U.S. 749, 775 (1989).[7]

When, as is the case here, a law enforcement agency investigates a private citizen and determines that an arrest is not warranted, records related to the investigation implicate privacy interests. See, e.g., Fund for Constitutional Government v. National Archives and Records Service, 656 F.2d 856, 864 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (“There can be no clearer example of an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy than to release to the public that another individual was the subject of an FBI investigation.”); American Civil Liberties Union v. Department of Justice, 655 F.3d 1, 7 n.8 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (“disclosure of records revealing that an individual was involved or mentioned in a law enforcement investigation implicates a significant privacy interest,” particularly where the individual was never charged or convicted). Additionally, private individuals who encounter the police to report crimes or for other reasons unrelated to being arrested have a privacy interest in reports containing their personal information and documenting those encounters. See Lyssikatos v. Narragansett Police Department, PR 21-12 (finding that third-party complainants have a privacy interest in their personal information in police reports).

This Office has repeatedly recognized that when applying the balancing test to records pertaining to incidents where no arrest occurred, the privacy interests may be especially heightened and the scales could accordingly tip in favor of nondisclosure. See Jenkins and Langer v. Narragansett Police Department, PR 20-35; Mercurio v. Cranston Police Department, PR 20-31; Harper v. Portsmouth Police Department, PR 19-15. That said, we have also repeatedly made clear that every record that is the subject of an APRA request must be thoughtfully reviewed on a case-by-case basis and public bodies should not automatically withhold records solely because they pertain to an incident that did not result in an arrest.

Indeed, this Office has found in some circumstances that the public interest in disclosure can outweigh the privacy interests in non-disclosure of records related to an incident where no arrests were made. See Milkovits v. Cranston Police Department, PR 24-09; Yolken, et al. v. City of Providence, PR 21-09. This is especially true where privacy concerns can be mitigated by redaction. Indeed, such redaction is mandatory when possible. See R.I. Gen. Laws §38-2-3(b) (“[a]ny reasonably segregable portion of a public record excluded by § 38-2-2(4) shall be available for public inspection after the deletion of the information which is the basis of the exclusion”). Redactions may be more likely able to effectively address privacy concerns when a request seeks a large number of incident reports or seeks reports not related to specific or identifiable individuals. For example, in Milkovits, this Office found that redactions could effectively address privacy concerns in incident reports where the requestor sought “records related to a multi-month time period and d[id] not seek records related to any particular incident or private person.” PR 24-09. In Yolken, this Office considered Providence’s response to an APRA request that sought all police reports related to responding to suspected overdoses between certain dates. This Office determined that “the implicated privacy interests can be effectively addressed by redaction because the Complainants seek a large number of incident reports related to overdoses (approximately 200) and the request did not seek records related to specific and identifiable individuals.” PR 21-09. This in contrast to this Office’s findings where we concluded that redactions were not possible to mitigate privacy interests in situations involving requests pertaining to a specific individual or incident. See Jenkins, PR 20-35; Mercurio, PR 20-31; see also Pawtucket Teachers Alliance v. Brady, 556 A.2d 556, 559 (R.I. 1989) (“[T]he report at issue in the present case specifically relates to the job performance of a single readily identifiable individual. Even if all references to proper names were deleted, the principal’s identity would still be abundantly clear from the entire context of the report.”).

Although this is a close call, here, the Complainant’s requests are more similar to the former line of findings than the latter. The Complainant did not request incident reports pertaining to a specific individual or an incident, but rather requested a large swath of reports. Our in camera review reveals that the reports pertain to multiple incidents and that the reports are mostly focused on responding to incidents that involved groups and public demonstrations rather than investigating a specific identifiable individual. For instance, many of the reports refer to alleged activity or incidents involving unidentified “strikers” and public demonstrations. Given the nature and breadth of the Complainant’s requests, the City has not provided sufficient evidence that all of these reports had to be withheld in their entirety and that the privacy interests could not be addressed by redacting names and personally identifying or sensitive information from the responsive incident reports. Although the City asserted that no reasonably segregable portion of the withheld records could be provided, it did not provide specific evidence to support that assertion. Accordingly, based on this specific record before us, we find that there are privacy interests in the reports, but that for at least some of these reports, the privacy interests implicated by the release of the responsive incident reports can be mitigated by redaction. We add the caveat that based on our in camera review, at least some of the reports are more focused on specific individuals. Accordingly, we do not foreclose the possibility that there may be some reports for which redaction may be insufficient to mitigate the privacy interests.

We now consider whether the public interest in the disclosure of the incident report outweighs the privacy interests implicated. See Dept. of Justice v. Reporters Comm. For Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 772 (1989) (“[W]hether disclosure of a private document . . . is warranted must turn on the nature of the requested document and its relationship to ‘the basic purpose . . . to open agency action to the light of public scrutiny.’”). “The touchstone concerning whether public disclosure of a record maintained by the government outweighs an individual’s privacy is whether the records concern official information about the government agency or sheds light on the conduct of government.” Farinelli v. City of Pawtucket, PR 23-39. The Complainant asserts in its Complaint that release of the responsive incident reports is in the public interest as it will “provide accounts of objectionable police behavior.” To be clear, based on our in camera review, these reports are garden-variety police incident reports, and our review does not provide us with any basis to believe that disclosure of the reports would materially shed light on any apparent potential police misconduct. That said, in the face of privacy interests that can be mitigated by redaction, the Complainant’s assertion of a public interest in the release of these incident reports, especially given that these records pertain to a public demonstration and labor action, is enough to tip the balancing test scales in favor of disclosure. There is a public interest in how law enforcement responds to incidents at demonstrations and protests. Accordingly, we find that the City violated the APRA by withholding all the responsive incident reports in their entirety. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-3(b).

The Complainant further asserts that the City improperly withheld three (3) arrest reports. However, the City argues, and the record confirms, that the City did provide the Complainant with redacted copies of the arrest reports. The City avers that it made “appropriate redactions” and the Complainant did not take issue with the redactions. Therefore, we find the City did not violate the APRA as it provided the Complainant with responsive documents within the required timeframe.

·         Call Logs and Radio/Dispatch Calls

o   Call Logs Related to Incident Reports

Initially, the Complainant asserts that the City improperly withheld call logs related to the above-discussed incident reports on the basis that they pertained to incidents that did not result in arrest. He argues that “[f]or the reasons stated above, these call logs and the related audio recordings should be disclosed because the public interest outweighs the individual privacy interests.” Our review of the evidence showed that the City did not withhold these call logs, but rather provided them to the Complainant with redactions. We analyze the appropriateness of these redactions.

·         Log for call #22-37466: The City permissibly redacted personally identifiable information about a private individual, including social security number, date of birth, and home address pursuant to Exemption (D)(c). This information implicated significant privacy interests. However, the City impermissibly redacted employee identification numbers in the log as the City has not demonstrated in the particular circumstances of these documents that there is a meaningful privacy interest in the release of an employee identification number related to a routine law enforcement call, especially considering that the employee’s names were not redacted on the log. The City further impermissibly redacted the narrative in its entirety despite it being feasible to mitigate any privacy concerns through redaction.

·         Log for call #22-37585: The City permissibly redacted personally identifiable information about a private individual pursuant to Exemption (D)(c) as the release of this information implicated significant privacy interests. The City also permissibly redacted a narrative in its entirety pursuant to Exemption (D)(c) as the narrative was only one sentence and the sentence involved personal medical information. Therefore, redaction would be unable to mitigate the privacy interests at stake. However, the City impermissibly redacted employee identification numbers in the log as the City has not demonstrated there is a meaningful privacy interest in the release of an employee identification number related to a routine law enforcement call, especially considering that the employee’s names were not redacted on the log.

·         Log for call #22-38133: The City impermissibly redacted employee identification numbers in the log for the reasons noted above.

·         Log for call #22-58980. The City impermissibly redacted employee identification numbers in the log for the reasons noted above.

Accordingly, we find the City violated the APRA by making certain redactions to the logs for calls #22-37466, #22-37585, #22-38133, and #22-58980.

o   Other Non-911 Call Logs

The Complainant further asserts that the City violated the APRA by redacting other call logs that do not relate to the above-described incident reports and that are not 911 calls. Our in camera review showed only one call log entry that was neither a 911 call nor related to the above-mentioned incident reports.

Log for call #22-54498: The City permissibly redacted personally identifiable information about a private individual pursuant to Exemption (D)(c) as the release of this information implicated significant privacy interests. The City also permissibly redacted the narrative pursuant to Exemption (D)(c) as it involved personal medical information that made redaction impractical. Further, the Complainant pointed to no public interest in the release of this narrative as this law enforcement call was for a well-being check on a private individual and not related to the labor dispute. However, the City impermissibly redacted employee identification numbers in the log for the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, we find the City violated the APRA by redacting employee identification numbers from the log for call #22-54498.

o   911 Call Logs

The Complainant further asserts that the City improperly redacted or denied requests for other call and dispatch logs on the basis that they were confidential pursuant to the Emergency 911 Telephone Number Act (“911 Act”). See R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 39-21.1-4(2)[8], 39-21.1-17. Indeed, the City did redact the entirety of call log entries pertaining to 911 calls.[9] However, the City argues that if 911 call audio recordings are exempt from disclosure under state law then so too are call logs related to those 911 calls. Meanwhile, the Complainant argues that only the audio recordings of 911 calls are exempt, not corresponding call logs.

This Office has previously rejected the overly-narrow construction of the Emergency 911 Telephone Number Act put forth by the Complainant as it has previously found that the statute exempts more than just audio recording of 911 calls, to include documents related to the recording of the calls such as call transcripts. See Chappell v. West Warwick Police Department et al., PR 00-17. That said, even if these logs were not exempt under the protections of the 911 Act, the 911 Act makes clear that the information contained in those logs―information from 911 calls―implicate significant privacy interests. 

The logs pertain to law enforcement calls dealing with a range of issues from the labor dispute, a well-being check, and an animal control call. These logs contain information about the 911 callers and summaries of what was said during the calls. For the reasons discussed above, there is a privacy interest in these records, and that privacy interest is heightened by the fact that the records relate to 911 calls and the 911 Act conveys a clear legislative determination that there is an especially heightened privacy interest related to 911 calls. The Complainant has not pointed to any public interest in the disclosure of these call logs that would overcome these privacy interests, nor is this Office able to discern any from our in camera review of the logs, especially in light of the other non-911 records that have already been disclosed or that we have determined should be disclosed, at least in part. Therefore, the privacy interests implicated by the disclosure of these logs outweigh any public interest in their disclosure. Accordingly, we find the City did not violate the APRA by withholding the call logs related to 911 calls, under the privacy balancing test, and potentially under the 911 Act as well. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-2(4)(D)(c); see also R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-2(4)(S).

·         Alleged Failure to Respond to APRA requests

The Complainant asserts that the City failed to respond to three APRA requests submitted on July 13, 2022. It asserts that at the time of its Complaint, “nearly five (5) months later, the Union has yet to receive any further response with respect to these requests.” However, the City contends that it invoked extensions and then responded to these requests on July 29, 2022. The City has provided this Office with APRA response letters sent to the Complainant on July 29, 2022 that demonstrate that the City responded as required by the APRA.

The Complainant further asserts that the City failed to specifically disclose, deny, or otherwise address its requests for documents related to a slew of incident calls.[10] However, the City has provided this Office with copies of the redacted documents it timely provided to the Complainant that relate to the incident calls requested. These documents demonstrate that the City responded as required by the APRA.

Finally, the Complainant asserts that the City failed to adequately respond to its requests for dispatch calls, AUTOCAD incidents, radio transmissions, electronic communications and police details. It acknowledges that the City stated that its requests were “broad, vague and imprecise” or “unduly burdensome.” However, its contends that its requests were sufficiently precise as they included references to the labor dispute, date, location, circumstances, and often specific incident numbers.

The City argues and provides evidence showing that it informed the Complainant that it was not in possession of any AUTOCAD incidents, command staff briefings, or police details responsive to his request. The Complainant fails to present any evidence or argument to contest the City’s contention that it does not have possession of any such documents or that it did not conduct a reasonable search for the same. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-3(a) (“all records maintained or kept on file by any public body … shall be public records) (emphasis added); Lopez v. City of Providence, PR 20-03 (“the APRA does not require a public body to disclose records that do not exist or that are not within its custody or control”); J.H. Lynch & Sons v. Rhode Island Department of Transportation, PR 19-0 (“The APRA requires a public body to conduct a reasonable search aimed at locating documents that are responsive to the particular request.”). Accordingly, we find no violation.

Regarding the radio transmissions and electronic communications, the City avers that it is still unsure of what exactly the Complainant is seeking. It notes that it has requested multiple times that the Complainant reframe its request and provide more clarity.

“[I]t is the requester’s responsibility to frame requests with sufficient particularity to ensure that searches are not unreasonably burdensome, and to enable the searching agency to determine precisely what records are being requested.” Nye v. Department of Public Safety, PR 16-46 (quoting Assassination Archives and Research v. Central Intelligence Agency, 720 F.Supp. 217 (D.D.C. 1989)); see Go Local Prov v. City of Providence, PR 16-20; Farinelli v. City of Pawtucket, PR 17-19.

Our review of the correspondence between the Complainant and the City shows that the City multiple times informed the Complainant that its request for radio transmissions and electric communications was vague. The City asked the Complainant multiple times to clarify its request. We were not presented with any evidence that this clarification request was made in bad faith or with the intent to obfuscate, especially given that the City substantively responded to the Complainant’s various other requests. Indeed, the terms “radio transmissions” and “electronic communications” are quite broad on their face and we do not find it unreasonable that the City required further clarification. Most critically, the Complainant did not make any attempt to re-frame or clarify its request, despite an opportunity to do so. See Nye, PR 16-46. Nor did the Complainant demonstrate that there was no need for clarification. Over the course of several APRA requests, the Complainant’s request in this regard did not change and indeed remained verbatim despite the City’s requests for clarification. Accordingly, we find no violation.

Finally, the Complainant in its Complaint requests “the dispatch and audio calls related to records already provided by the City, as well as those addressed in this Complaint.” However, an APRA complaint filed with this Office is not the proper avenue to request the disclosure of documents under the APRA. The Complaint process is solely for the purpose of reviewing and determining whether a public body’s response to an already-filed APRA request violated the APRA. Any additional requests for the disclosure of documents should be addressed in a new APRA request to the City.

Although seeking injunctive relief may be appropriate, we prefer to allow the City an opportunity to comply with this finding.  Within ten (10) business days of the issuance of this finding, the City should provide the Complainant with the following incident reports: #22-3212-OF, #22-3221-OF, #22-3259-OF, #22-3333-OF, #22-3334-OF, #22-3634-OF, #22-3821-OF, #22-4678-OF. #22-737-FI, #22-4841-OF, #22-22-4866-OF and #22-5378-OF. As well as the call log for calls #22-37466, #22-37585, #22-38133, #22-54498, and #22-58980.[11] We have recognized that these records implicate privacy interests and the City may make appropriate redactions consistent with our analysis in this finding. Additionally, we have acknowledged that some of the reports are more focused on specific individuals than others; in such cases we recognize that more extensive redaction may be appropriate. If there are any reports that the City still believes should be withheld altogether, it must provide a detailed and particularized explanation regarding why no reasonably segregable portion is available. If the City redacts the records (or withholds any record) and if the Complainant contends the response violates the APRA, it should notify this Office within five (5) business days of receipt of the City’s response, and identify the specific aspect of the response that he contends violates the APRA and why, and we would review the matter.

We further conclude that insufficient evidence exists to find a willful and knowing, or alternatively reckless, violation. Application of the balancing test can be difficult and there is no indication that the City acted in bad faith. Nonetheless, this finding serves as notice that the conduct discussed herein violates the APRA and may serve as evidence of a willful and knowing, or reckless, violation in any similar future situation.

Although this Office will not file suit at this time, nothing within the APRA prohibits an individual or entity from instituting an action for injunctive or declaratory relief in Superior Court as provided in the APRA.  See R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-8(b).  Please be advised that we will keep this file open pending compliance with this Office’s finding.

We thank you for your interest in keeping government open and accountable to the public.

Sincerely,

PETER F. NERONHA

ATTORNEY GENERAL

By: /s/ Patrick Reynolds

Patrick Reynolds

Special Assistant Attorney General