Somerville argues privacy interest in parking permit records before court panel

In a recent oral argument held on May 12, 2025, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court addressed a significant case involving the city of Somerville and resident parking permits. The case, City of Somerville v. Shawn Williams, centers on the balance between privacy interests of residents and the public's right to access information.

David Shapiro, representing Somerville, argued that there exists a legitimate privacy interest in the names and addresses of residents who hold parking permits. He emphasized that disclosing this information could violate residents' reasonable expectations of privacy, particularly under the Driver Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), which aims to safeguard personal information related to driving. Shapiro contended that while names and addresses may not be inherently private, the context of their use—linked to parking permits—creates a reasonable expectation of privacy that should be recognized by the court.

The justices probed the implications of this argument, questioning whether the public interest in transparency and accountability could outweigh individual privacy concerns. They highlighted the necessity for concrete evidence of wrongdoing or mismanagement by the city to justify the release of such private information. Shapiro maintained that mere speculation or allegations of impropriety were insufficient to override privacy rights, referencing previous case law that requires a substantial public interest to justify disclosure.

Michael Kerrigan, representing the supervisor of public records, countered that names and addresses do not inherently possess a privacy interest unless linked to more sensitive information. He argued that the public has a right to access information that could reveal how the city administers its parking permit program, especially if there are concerns about favoritism or improper conduct. Kerrigan pointed out that the court must consider the specific context of the request and the nature of the information being sought.

The discussion also touched on the practical challenges faced by public record custodians in navigating privacy laws and public access rights. The justices expressed concern about the complexities involved in determining what constitutes an unwarranted invasion of privacy, particularly for non-legal personnel tasked with handling record requests.

As the court deliberates on this case, the outcome could set a precedent for how privacy interests are balanced against public access to information in Massachusetts. The decision will likely have implications for residents' rights to privacy in their personal information and the public's right to transparency in government operations. The court's ruling is anticipated to clarify the standards for evaluating privacy interests in similar cases moving forward.