John Cinotti v. Department of State Police (SPR 20252644)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 17, 2025 SPR25/2644 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 John N. Cinotti 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 February 11, 2025, Mr. Cinotti requested: [1] The report(s) of the interviews of [an identified individual]…on or about May 30, 1999 by [two identified] MSP Trooper[s] and/or other MSP Troopers of the Western Mass Gang Task Force; [2] The affidavit[s] of [two identified] MSP Trooper[s] on or about May 31, 1999 for a search warrant for the Springfield, MA residence of [an identified individual][;] [3] The statement or affidavit of [an identified individual]…given on or about May 30, 1999 to [two identified] MSP Troopers and/or other MSP Troopers of the Western Mass Gang Task Force, relating [to] his membership in the Latin Kings, and the hierarchy of that organization. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/1864 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 2, 2025). In my July 2nd determination, I found that the Department had not met its burden in responding to the request, and ordered that Mr. Cinotti be provided with a further response. 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 SPR25/2644 Page 2 September 17, 2025 The Department provided a response on August 11, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Cinotti petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2644, 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 August 11th Response In its August 11, 2025 response, the Department produced an investigative report responsive to the request. The Department stated that the report had been redacted pursuant to Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. Current Appeal In his September 8, 2025 petition to this office, Mr. Cinotti contended that the considerations underlying Exemption (f) did not apply to a case of sufficient age. Exemption (f) Exemption (f) permits the withholding of: investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of the public view by law enforcement or other investigatory officials the disclosure of which materials would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest

Allison Mondello SPR25/2644 Page 3 September 17, 2025 G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f). A custodian of records generally must demonstrate a prejudice to investigative efforts in order to withhold requested records. Information relating to an ongoing investigation may be withheld if disclosure could alert suspects to the activities of investigative officials. Confidential investigative techniques may also be withheld indefinitely if disclosure is deemed to be prejudicial to future law enforcement activities. Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 62 (1976). Redactions may be appropriate where they serve to preserve the anonymity of voluntary witnesses. Antell v. Att’y Gen., 52 Mass. App. Ct. 244, 248 (2001); Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 290 n.18 (1979). Exemption (f) invites a “case-by- case consideration” of whether disclosure “would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest.” Id. at 289-90. As a matter of course, witness provided information is essential to efficient and effective law enforcement. This exemption is intended to allow investigative officials to provide an assurance of confidentiality to private citizens so that they will speak openly and voluntarily about matters. Redactions may be appropriate where they serve to preserve the anonymity of the complainant and voluntary witnesses. Antell, 52 Mass. App. Ct. at 248; Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 290 n.18; Bougas, 371 Mass. at 62. Any information contained in a witness statement, which if disclosed would create a grave risk of directly or indirectly identifying the voluntary witness is subject to withholding. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Ret. Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 438 (1983). The Supreme Judicial Court has held that “the inquiry as to what constitutes identifying information regarding an individual must be considered not only from the viewpoint of the public, but also from the vantage of those who are familiar with the individual and his [or her] career.” Id. at 438. In its August 11th response, the Department stated: The Department has redacted the identified of witness(es), informant(s), and/or complaint(s) pursuant to G. L. c. 4, §7, cl. 26 (f) … The Appeals Court as well as the SJC have been explicitly clear that, although witness anonymity is clearly exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Law, the witness statements are not unless a compelling reason exists to redact that statement. However, while some material may not immediately identify the witness, “[t]he inquiry as to what constitutes identifying information regarding an individual … must be considered not only from the viewpoint of the public, but also from the vantage of those who are familiar with the individual and his career.” Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Retirement Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 438 (1983) (exempting, under §7, Twenty-sixth (c), materials that might indirectly identify an individual). Even materials relating to an inactive investigation may require confidentiality in order to convince citizens that they may safely confide in law enforcement

Allison Mondello SPR25/2644 Page 4 September 17, 2025 officials … The Appeals Court has stated that “[c]oncerns as to confidentiality and promotion of candor are protected … by the privacy and investigatory exemptions.” Worcester T&G v. Chief of Police of Worcester, 58 Mass. App. Ct., 608 n.8 (2003). In Camera Inspection In order to facilitate a determination as to the applicability of the Exemption (f) claim made by the Department to redact the responsive record, the Department must provide this office with an un-redacted copy of the responsive record for in camera inspection. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4). After I complete my review of the record, I will return the record to the Department’s custody and issue an opinion on the public or exempt nature of the record. The authority to require the submission of records for an in camera inspection emanates from the Code of Massachusetts Regulations. 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4); see also G. L. c. 66, § 1. This office interprets the in camera inspection process to be analogous to that utilized by the judicial system. See Rock v. Mass. Comm’n Against Discrimination, 384 Mass. 198, 206 (1981) (administrative agency entitled deference in the interpretation of its own regulations). Records are not voluntarily submitted, but rather are submitted pursuant to an order by this office that an in camera inspection is necessary to make a proper finding. Records are submitted for the limited purpose of review. This office is not the custodian of records examined in camera, therefore, any request made to this office for records being reviewed in camera will be denied. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4)(c). This office has a long history of cooperation with governmental agencies with respect to in camera inspection. Custodians submit copies of the relevant records to this office upon a promise of confidentiality. This office does not release records reviewed in camera to anyone under any circumstances. Upon a determination of the public record status, records reviewed in camera are promptly returned to the custodian. To operate in any other fashion would seriously impede our ability to function and would certainly affect our credibility within the legal community. Please be aware, any cover letter submitted to accompany the relevant records may be subject to disclosure. Order Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide this office with an un-redacted copy of the responsive record for in camera inspection without delay.

Allison Mondello SPR25/2644 Page 5 September 17, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: John N. Cinotti