Appeals Court Hears Argument Over Privacy of Somerville Resident Parking Permits

The Massachusetts Appeals Court heard competing arguments on whether the names and addresses linked to Somerville resident parking permits are exempt from disclosure under the Massachusetts public-records privacy exemption.

At issue in City of Somerville v. Shawn Williams was whether the public interest in access outweighs any privacy interest in the limited permit data the motion judge allowed to be disclosed. David Shapiro, counsel for the City of Somerville, told the panel that “there is a privacy interest in resident parking permits that are required to be obtained by residents in Somerville,” and argued the records implicate a privacy interest that should not be disclosed absent evidence of official wrongdoing.

Michael Kerrigan, appearing for the Supervisor of Public Records as a special assistant attorney general, told the court the state-law balancing test is flexible and that names and addresses alone are generally not inherently private. Kerrigan said the motion judge properly narrowed the public disclosure to remove vehicle-identifying fields the judge deemed more privacy-sensitive and that the federal Driver Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), while not controlling, was weighed by the lower tribunals as guidance.

Shapiro urged the court to recognize an informational privacy interest “to meet the reasonable expectations of privacy of residents in Somerville” and warned that allowing access to the city permit list could be used to circumvent federal protections by obtaining a subset at city hall that the Registry of Motor Vehicles would not disclose in bulk.

Kerrigan responded that the DPPA’s purpose was considered by both the Supervisor and the motion judge but does not displace the Massachusetts balancing analysis; he emphasized the need for concrete evidence of harm rather than speculation about potential misuse before privacy can prevail.

During questioning the justices pressed both sides on whether the subset of permit-holders differs materially from other public data sources and how case law treats names and addresses when combined with other fields. The panel also asked whether allegations of improper administration by the city, if supported by evidence, could tip the balance in favor of disclosure.

The argument focused on case-specific balancing: the city urged recognition of a privacy interest tied to drivers and permits; the Supervisor advised that names and addresses are not per se private and that the motion judge’s carving out of vehicle identifiers addressed the principal DPPA concerns. The case was submitted after oral argument.