Brian McCarter v. Department of State Police (SPR 20252189)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 1, 2025 SPR25/2189 Allison Mondello Public Records Manager Massachusetts Department of State Police 50 Maple Street Milford, MA 01757 Dear Ms. Mondello: I have received the petition of Brian McCarter appealing the response of the Department of State Police (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On June 20, 2025, Mr. McCarter requested records from January 1, 2023 to present pertaining to “incidents occurring within approximately 1 mile of the Mass Ave Connector in Boston—including the area commonly referred to as the Connector, Mass and Cass, Methadone Mile, Recovery Road, Miracle Mile, or the Albany Street corridor—including intersections with Albany Street, Melnea Cass Boulevard and the I-93 ramps.” Specifically, Mr. McCarter sought: [1] All incident reports, arrest records, and field interview reports for events occurring within 1 mile of the Mass Ave Connector [including] records involving overdoses, assaults, weapons-related incidents, disorderly conduct, trespassing, and medical assistance. [2] All call-for-service logs, CAD data, or dispatch records involving response to this area [including] any classification codes or incident types where available. [3] All internal communications (including emails, memos, text messages, and messages sent through Signal, WhatsApp, iMessage, Slack, Microsoft Teams, or other messaging applications) referencing crime, overdoses, encampments, repeat hazard areas, or public safety concerns near the Connector. [4] Any communications with Boston Police, MBTA Police, MassDOT, Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH), Executive Office of Health and Human Services (EOHHS), Executive Office of Public Safety and Security (EOPSS), Department of Mental Health (DMH), Department of Public Utilities 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

Allison Mondello SPR25/2189 Page 2 August 1, 2025 (DPU), Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD), City of Boston (including the Mayor’s Office, Boston Public Health Commission, Office of Recovery Services, and Department of Neighborhood Development), Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department, or any other state, municipal, or regional, city agency/departments concerning safety risks, public health issues, enforcement coordination, or planned operations in the area. [5] Any records relating to EMS responses, ambulance transports, or hospital coordination for incidents occurring in the area, including overdose incidents or mass casualty preparations. This includes records received from, shared with, or created in coordination with Boston EMS, private ambulance services, area hospitals, or public health agencies. [6] Any crime pattern analyses, intelligence bulletins, or internal threat or risk assessments pertaining to the Connector and adjacent locations. [7] Any reports, complaints, or internal safety alerts from troopers regarding repeat threats, unsafe conditions, or health/sanitation concerns along the Connector corridor. [8] Any communications between MSP and MassDOT or its contractors related to encampments, pedestrian hazards, debris removal, public safety issues, or cleanup efforts along the Connector. [9] Any internal communications regarding a decision not to issue a public safety bulletin, press release, or public warning despite known or ongoing danger at or near the Connector. [10] Any daily shift logs, roll-call briefings, patrol directives, or command staff situation reports that reference the Connector area or nearby encampments, drug activity, or public safety hazards. [11] Records of naloxone administrations or other life-saving medical interventions by troopers within the 1-mile zone, including supply-reorder logs or usage summaries. [12] All cruiser dash-camera, body-worn camera (if any), or radio-channel audio recordings associated with incidents in the area. If video is retained only under specific incident numbers, please identify the numbers or hash values so the footage can be requested or preserved. [13] Any after-action reports, operational plans, or “directed patrol” / “hot-spot” enforcement plans that reference the Connector corridor, including joint operations with Boston Police, MBTA Police, or MassDOT.

Allison Mondello SPR25/2189 Page 3 August 1, 2025 Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/1988 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 23, 2025). In my July 23rd determination, I found that it was unclear whether the Department had provided Mr. McCarter with a response to his request. Subsequently, I learned the Department responded on July 22, 2025, assigning the request reference number P006467-062225. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. McCarter petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2189, 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 July 22nd Response In its July 22, 2025 response, the Department stated: Your request, as written, is vague and lacks specificity to such an extent that the Department is unable to research it without more detailed information. Without further specific, descriptive information, the Department cannot reasonably undertake a search of its records. The Massachusetts Court of Appeals in the case of Friedman v. Div. of Admin. L. Appeals, 103 Mass. App. Ct. 806, 814 (2024) clarified that requests made pursuant to G.L. c. 66, sec. 10 must provide the agency with a sufficient description of the records sought so as “[to enable] a professional employee of the agency who was familiar with the subject area of the request to locate the record with a reasonable amount of effort” Id. at 815–16… The Department requests that you respond with specifically descriptive information that would assist the Department in researching your request. Specifically descriptive information such as specific addresses would be the most

Allison Mondello SPR25/2189 Page 4 August 1, 2025 beneficial in our search to locate your requested records. If a response is not received within ten business days, this request will be considered closed. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. McCarter argues that the Department’s response is “procedurally invalid,” and that “the request is sufficiently specific and is not vague.” Please be advised that in Friedman v. Division of Administrative Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Education Appeals, the Suffolk Superior Court, in its Memorandum of Decision and Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, stated: [The requester] has a right to seek public records from his government, provided he does so in a reasonable manner. [The agencies], in turn, have a right not to be inundated with drain-the-ocean records requests, provided they fulfill the basic expectations of the [Public Records Law] in a fair and transparent manner. See Friedman v. Division of Administrative Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Education Appeals, Suffolk Sup. No. 2284CV02061-C, at 3 (February 14, 2023). The Court in Friedman noted, “the extraordinary volume of records called for in this case has compelled the Defendants to produce responsive materials in a ‘rolling’ fashion, rather than in accordance with deadlines contemplated by the [Public Records Law].” Id. at 1. In addition, please be aware that the request must reasonably describe the specific records sought. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). In a recent case, the Superior court found that under the Public Records Law “[t]he reasonable description requirement contemplates that a requesting party will identify documents or categories of documents with sufficient particularity that government employees will be able to understand exactly what they are looking for, and then make a prompt production.” See Jaideep Chawla v. Dept of Revenue, Suffolk. Sup. No. l 784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019). This office encourages Mr. McCarter and the Department to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (an agency shall suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the agency to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Conclusion If outstanding issues remain after Mr. McCarter and the Department communicate further as described above, Mr. McCarter may file an appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Allison Mondello SPR25/2189 Page 5 August 1, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Brian McCarter