Nicholas K. Haynes, Esq. v. Department of State Police (SPR 20252435)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 29, 2025 SPR25/2435 Allison Mondello Public Records Manager Office of the Chief Legal Counsel Massachusetts Department of State Police 50 Maple Street Milford, MA 01757 Dear Ms. Mondello: I have received the petition of Nicholas K. Haynes, Esq., of Thomas Law, PLLC., 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 17, 2025, Attorney Haynes requested the following records related to a June 19, 2023 motor vehicle crash: [1] Collision analysis and reconstruction section (CARS) report; [2] Coroner’s report for [an identified individual]; [3] Body worn camera images and/or video and/or audio; [4] Cruiser mounted camera images and/or video and/or audio; [5] 911 Calls regarding 06/19/2023 collision; [6] Law enforcement radio traffic regarding the 06/19/2023 collision; [7] Images, video, or other media of vehicles involved in, persons involved in, and/or scene of the 06/19/2023 collision; [8] Data from vehicle downloads (e.g., ‘blackbox’ data); [9] Total Station and/or similar data; and [10] Statements from witnesses and/or persons with knowledge of the 06/19/2023 collision and/or the resulting criminal investigation of [an identified individual] and/or Assabet Mack Service, Inc. The Department responded on June 27, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Attorney Haynes petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2435, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the Department provided a further response on August 27, 2025. 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 SPR25/2435 Page 2 August 29, 2025 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. Att’y 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. Status of the Requestor; Reason for the Request Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Attorney Haynes’ purpose in making the request has no bearing on the public nature of any existing responsive records. The Department’s June 27th Response In its June 27, 2025 response, the Department directed Attorney Haynes to contact an identified individual “… at the Worcester District Attorney’s office for information/materials related to this incident.” Current Appeal In his August 15, 2025 petition to this office, Attorney Haynes contended that the Department had failed to produce responsive records in its possession. In its August 27, 2025 response, the Department clarified that while it possessed responsive records, “the district attorney or his law enforcement representative shall direct and control the investigation of [a] death” pursuant to G. L. c. 38, § 4.

Allison Mondello SPR25/2435 Page 3 August 29, 2025 Exemption (a) Exemption (a), known as the statutory exemption, permits the withholding of records that are: specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). A governmental entity may use the statutory exemption as a basis for withholding requested materials where the language of the exempting statute relied upon expressly or necessarily implies that the public’s right to inspect records under the Public Records Law is restricted. See Att’y Gen. v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 54 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-46 (1977). This exemption creates two categories of exempt records. The first category includes records that are specifically exempt from disclosure by statute. Such statutes expressly state that such a record either “shall not be a public record,” “shall be kept confidential” or “shall not be subject to the disclosure provision of the Public Records Law.” The second category under the exemption includes records deemed exempt under statute by necessary implication. Such statutes expressly limit the dissemination of particular records to a defined group of individuals or entities. A statute is not a basis for exemption if it merely lists individuals or entities to whom the records are to be provided; the statute must expressly limit access to the listed individuals or entities. In its August 27, 2025 response, the Department relied upon G. L. c. 38, § 4, which provides: The district attorney or his law enforcement representative shall direct and control the investigation of the death and shall coordinate the investigation with the office of the chief medical examiner and the police department within whose jurisdiction the death occurred … In carrying out the duties prescribed by this section, the chief medical examiner or his designee shall be entitled to review and receive copies of medical records, hospital records, or information which he deems relevant to establishing the cause and manner of death. No person or hospital shall be subject to liability of any nature for providing such records or information in good faith at the request of the office. The chief medical examiner shall notify the local district attorney of the death of a child immediately following receipt of a report that such a death occurred. G. L. c. 38, § 4.

Allison Mondello SPR25/2435 Page 4 August 29, 2025 Based on the Department’s responses, it is unclear how the cited statute expressly or by necessary implication permits the Department to withhold the responsive records from disclosure. Consequently, I find that the Department has not met its burden to withhold the responsive records under Exemption (a) of the Pubic Records Law. See Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Attorney Haynes with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Attorney Haynes may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Nicholas K. Haynes, Esq.