Nick Haynes v. Department of State Police (SPR 20253496)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 10, 2025 SPR25/3496 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. Previous Appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR25/2435 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 29, 2025); SPR25/2675 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 23, 2025) and SPR25/2827 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (October 8, 2025). In my October 8th determination, I found that the Department had not met its 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 SPR25/3496 Page 2 December 10, 2025 burden to withhold responsive records under Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. Subsequently, the Department responded on November 17, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Attorney Haynes petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3496, 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 November 17th Response In its previous September 24, 2025 response, the Department cited G. L. c. 38, § 4 to deny Attorney Haynes’ request. In its November 17, 2025 response, the Department cited G. L. c. 276, § 100C and G. L. c. 276, § 100Q to deny the request and referenced a previous determination from the Supervisor in support of its claims. Specifically, the Department stated: To the extent records exist . . . the records you requested fall within [Exemption (a)] since releasing the records would violate G. L. c. 276, § 100C and G. L. c. 276, § 100Q. The Department maintains the same position as the Worcester County District Attorney’s Office in its July 9, 2025 denial to your request for the same records. . . . You appealed the Worcester County District Attorney’s Office response in SPR25-2436. On September 2, 2025, the Supervisor of Records affirmed the denial indicating . . . the requested records are exempt from disclosure by necessary implication pursuant to the second category of Exemption (a). . . . For the same reasons, the Department denies your request.

Allison Mondello SPR25/3496 Page 3 December 10, 2025 Upon review, it appears that the Department’s November 17th response refers to an appeal that was addressed in SPR25/2436. See SPR25/2436 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 2, 2025). SPR25/2346 involved a July 7, 2025 request in which Attorney Haynes requested records “… relating to the death of [an identified individual] and the investigation and prosecution of [an identified individual][.]” Current Appeal In his November 25, 2025 appeal petition, Attorney Haynes states that the Department “did not comply by the [response] deadline, and its 2025.11.17 portal email again diverted to the DA without production, schedule, fee estimate, or exemption/redaction log.” 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 November 17, 2025 response, the Department relied upon G. L. c. 276, § 100C, which provides: In any criminal case wherein the defendant has been found not guilty by the court or jury, or a no bill has been returned by the grand jury, or a finding of no probable cause has been made by the court, the commissioner of probation shall seal said court appearance and disposition recorded in his files and the clerk and

Allison Mondello SPR25/3496 Page 4 December 10, 2025 the probation officers of the courts in which the proceedings occurred or were initiated shall likewise seal the records of the proceedings in their files … The commissioner or the clerk of courts in any district or superior court or the Boston municipal court, in response to inquiries by authorized persons other than any law enforcement agency or any court, shall in the case of a sealed record report that no record exists. G. L. c. 276, § 100C. The Department additionally relied upon G. L. c. 276, § 100Q, which provides: No person shall make records sealed pursuant to section 100A or section 100B or expunged pursuant to section 100F, section 100G, section 100H or section 100K available for inspection in any form by any person. G. L. c. 276, § 100Q Upon review, given that the requested records are sealed under G. L. c. 276, § 100C, which limits the dissemination of these records and requires that records custodians “… report that no record exists,” the requested records are exempt from disclosure by necessary implication pursuant to the second category of Exemption (a). Therefore, the Department has met its burden in responding to this request under the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 276, § 100C; Doe v. Bd. of Registration in Med., 485 Mass. 554, 563 n.17 (2020) (holding that records sealed under G. L. c. 276, § 100C are statutorily exempt from disclosure pursuant to Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law). Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Attorney Haynes is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Nicholas K. Haynes, Esq.