Nicholas K. Haynes, Esq. v. Massachusetts State Police (SPR 20252675)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 23, 2025 SPR25/2675 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. Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR25/2435 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 29, 2025). In my August 29th determination, I found that the Department had not met its burden to withhold responsive records in their entirety pursuant to Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. 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 SPR25/2675 Page 2 September 23, 2025 The Department responded on September 4, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Attorney Haynes petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2675, 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. 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. The Department’s September 4th Response In its September 4, 2025 response, the Department stated: Please be advised that the Department has determined that there are records which may be responsive to your public records request. However, such records are in the possession, custody and control of the Worcester County District Attorney’s office. The Department has communicated your public records request to the Worcester County DA’s office, which has indicated to the Department that they will respond to it. The Department has referred your request to the Worcester County District Attorney’s office because the authority of the district attorneys in their respective counties to conduct and control criminal investigations and cases (“administration of the criminal law” and “control of such cases”) is unquestioned. See, e.g. G.L. c.12, §§ 3, 13, & 25-27; see also G.L. c. 54, §154 (respective counties and district attorneys created and “divided for the administration of the criminal law”). Several statutes reflect that when, police (including Department members) work under the direction and authority of a district attorney, they are a designee or law enforcement representative of that DA and not a separate actor. See e.g. (1) G.L. c. 38, §4 – “Providing that “[t]he district attorney or his law enforcement representative shall direct and control the investigation” (Homicides); (2) G.L. c.

Allison Mondello SPR25/2675 Page 3 September 23, 2025 12, §24 – Authorizing payment of expenses incurred “by officers and others under [the district attorney’s] direction;” and (3) G.L. c, 12, §25 – Authorizing payment of expenses “incurred by officers, under the direction of a district attorney.” There is also at least one provision in G.L. c. 22C that reflects the Colonel’s ability to assign personnel to assist the attorney general and district attorney in the “investigation and prosecution” of criminal offenses (see G.L. c. 22C, §6) and another (G.L. c. 12, §21) that reflects the assignment of Boston Police officers to the Suffolk District Attorney’s office (see G.L. c. 22C, §15) and other police officers also take an oath to obey the lawful orders of superiors, which (by constitutional and statutory inference) includes the attorney general and district attorneys. As such, each district attorney’s office has its own State Police Detective Unit (“SPDU”) and pays annually for any overtime performed by MSP Troopers assigned to that SPDU. Each Trooper assigned to the SPDU reports to an office space maintained by the district attorney. The district attorney provides each Trooper in its SPDU a cell phone, email address, and computer. If an SPDU member needs technical assistance, he/she uses the district attorney’s IT Department. All reports, memos, and other documentation related to the work performed by the SPDU is kept in office space maintained by the district attorney. The SPDU members’ schedules are determined by the work the SPDU is performing at the time for the district attorney’s office. Strategy and investigative plans are coordinated with the district attorney, not the Massachusetts State Police. The drafting, reviewing, and approval of all investigative reports is completed within the SPDU and does not require additional oversight by the Department. M.G.L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii) requires production of records only where “the public record is within the possession, custody or control of the agency.” Given the operational function that SPDU members perform for the district attorneys as described above, the records that may be responsive to your public records request are in the possession, custody, and control of the Worcester County District Attorney’s office, and to the extent that these records were created by SPDU members, the members created them only as agents of the Worcester District Attorney. Current Appeal In his September 10, 2025 petition to this office, Attorney Haynes objected to the Department’s response as out of compliance with the Public Records Law. While the Department has indicated that the Worcester County District Attorney possesses records responsive to the request, based on the Department’s response it is unclear if the Department possesses records responsive to the request. The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the

Allison Mondello SPR25/2675 Page 4 September 23, 2025 custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). Additionally, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). Consequently, the Department must clarify whether it possesses records responsive to the request. 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.