Eoin Higgins v. Massachusetts Department of State Police (SPR 20253281)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 20, 2025 SPR25/3281 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 Eoin Higgins 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 October 20, 2025, Mr. Higgins requested, “any and all materials related to the murder of [an identified individual] [during] the week of July 4, 2005.” Including the following: [1] List of suspects[;] [2] Murder weapon[;] [3] [S]ite photos and analysis[.] Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/3270 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 7, 2025). In my November 7th determination, I closed SPR25/3270 in light of the Department providing a response on November 6, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Higgins petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/3281, 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). 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 SPR25/3281 Page 2 November 20, 2025 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 November 6th Response In its November 6, 2025 response, the Department “identified potentially responsive records, including: [an identified] Case File” and cited Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law to deny Mr. Higgins’ request in its entirety. Current Appeal In his November 6, 2025 appeal, Mr. Higgins objects to the Department’s claims under Exemption (f) and states, “[t]here is no blanket exemption for an ongoing investigation.” 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. 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, 371 Mass at 62. 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.” See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-290.

Allison Mondello SPR25/3281 Page 3 November 20, 2025 The Supreme Judicial Court has stated that Exemption (f) aims at “the avoidance of premature disclosure of the Commonwealth’s case prior to trial, the prevention of the disclosure of confidential investigative techniques, procedures, or sources of information, the encouragement of individual citizens to come forward and speak freely with police concerning matters under investigation, and the creation of initiative that police officers might be completely candid in recording their observations, hypotheses and interim conclusions.” Bougas, 371 Mass. at 62; cited with approval in Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289. Confidential investigative techniques may also be withheld indefinitely if disclosure is deemed to be prejudicial to future law enforcement activities. Bougas, 371 Mass. at 62. To properly claim that Exemption (f) applies, a custodian must demonstrate that the disclosure of the records would have a prejudicial effect on its investigative efforts. This can be accomplished by describing how the records fall into one of three categories. These are the three categories that justify withholding records under Exemption (f):  The records reflect an ongoing investigation, such that any information relating to an ongoing investigation that could potentially alert suspects or targets to the activities of investigative officials;  The records reflect internal techniques, procedures, or sources, such that their disclosure would prejudice not only ongoing, but future law enforcement efforts; or  Disclosure of records would cause a chilling effect, because the exemption allows investigative officials to provide an assurance of confidentiality to individuals so that they will speak openly about matters under investigation. Such records in this third category include: any details in statements that directly or indirectly identify a private citizen who volunteers as a witness; an entire statement if the identity of witnesses is known to the requestor; and information voluntarily provided by an individual or entity to aid in the investigation. Under Exemption (f), the Department advised the following: Please be advised that, according to information provided to this office, this incident remains the subject of an ongoing investigation. In light of the pending investigation, the record(s) you seek are not subject to public disclosure at this time pursuant to G.L. c. 4, §7, cl. 26 (f). . . . Releasing information and records regarding an on-going investigation would detract from effective law enforcement and could prejudice investigative efforts. The Department is compelled to conduct a thorough and objective investigation of the events into this incident. There is an interest in preserving the integrity of the investigation and any potential subsequent prosecution. It is not in the public’s interest to release this information, as such release could potentially taint any potential jury pool if the investigation results in a criminal prosecution. . . . Based upon the forgoing and given the pendency of the investigation, the Department

Allison Mondello SPR25/3281 Page 4 November 20, 2025 denies the request. There is no date certain by which the investigation will be complete, [the Department] [recommends] you re-submit your request at a later time. Upon review of the Department’s response, it is unclear how the records, in their entirety, can be withheld under Exemption (f). The Department did not provide supporting information on how the investigative process is ongoing. It is additionally unclear whether the records contain confidential investigative techniques that would be prejudicial to the ongoing investigation if disclosed. The Department also did not demonstrate how disclosure of any segregable portion of the responsive records “would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest[,]” as required under Exemption (f). See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90 (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). The Department must clarify these matters. Further, based on the Department’s response, it is unclear what type of records it possesses that it is withholding from disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based . . .”). Therefore, the Department must identify the records it has in its possession that it is withholding pursuant to Exemption (f). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Higgins with a response to his 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. Mr. Higgins may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within 90 days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Eoin Higgins