Thomas E. Humphrey v. Massachusetts State Police (SPR 20252696)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 12, 2025 SPR25/2696 Allison Mondello Public Records Manager Massachusetts Department of State Police 470 Worcester Road Framingham, MA 01702 Dear Ms. Mondello: I have received the petition of Thomas E. Humphrey appealing the response of the Massachusetts 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 September 5, 2025, Mr. Humphrey requested the following records related to an August 26, 2025 incident: [1] All body-worn camera (BWC) video and audio recordings captured during the incident, including but not limited to footage from the initial traffic stop, [an identified individual’s] interaction with officers, search, handcuffing, placement in the cruiser, and transport to SP Concord. [2] All cruiser-mounted camera (CMC) video and audio recordings captured during the incident, including but not limited to footage from cruiser #0622 or any other involved vehicles, covering the traffic stop, roadside interactions, and any related activities. [3] Any associated metadata, logs, or reports documenting the activation, duration, and chain of custody for the above BWC and CMC recordings. The Department responded on September 10, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Humphrey petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2696, 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 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 SPR25/2696 Page 2 September 12, 2025 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. 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, Mr. Humphrey’s purpose in making the request has no bearing on the public status of any existing responsive records. The Department’s September 10th Response In its September 10, 2025 response, the Department informed Mr. Humphrey that it was withholding three responsive records in their entirety pursuant to Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. The Department further stated that the responsive records were related to “… an on-going and active criminal prosecution which is now pending in the Woburn District Court, Docket #2553CR001576.” Current Appeal In his September 12, 2025 petition to this office, Mr. Humphrey contended that he possessed a special right of access to the responsive records on the basis of certain constitutional protections and common law principles. This office has reviewed the docket of the trial court and confirmed that the requested records are the subject of active and ongoing litigation in Woburn District Court. See Commonwealth v. Thomas E. Humphrey (Docket No. 2553CR001576).

Allison Mondello SPR25/2696 Page 3 September 12, 2025 Pending Litigation 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. In light of the pending litigation, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). I further decline to opine on the applicability of Exemption (f) to the responsive records. It should be noted that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Thomas E. Humphrey