David Webb v. Department of State Police (SPR 20253519)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 11, 2025 SPR25/3519 Allison Mondello Public Records Manager Massachusetts Department of State Police 50 Maple Street Milford, MA 01757 Dear Ms. Mondello: I have received the petition of David Webb 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 27, 2025 Mr. Webb requested “bodyworn footage and police report from the trooper who knelt on a black mans neck outside Whiskey On Water in Worcester Massachusetts at approximately 2am this past weekend, either 10-26-25 or 10-25-25.” The Department responded on November 17, and November 21, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s responses, Mr. Webb petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3519, 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. See 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. 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 SPR25/3519 Page 2 December 11, 2025 If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. See 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 Deparment’s November 17th and November 21st Responses In its November 17, 2025 response, the Department stated, “that the Department of State Police is still working on a response to your request.” In its November 21, 2025 response, the Department withheld a police report and body worn camera footage pursuant to Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f). The Department further states that “the records that you seek relate to a pending prosecution.” Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Webb states, “[t]he state responded claiming that the disclosure of these materials would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest. However, this was a public matter on a public street that was documented by both the public and the Worcester Police Department, who has already provided their body worn footage and reports of the event.” 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. This office has reviewed the trial court’s docket and verified that the criminal litigation relating to the records that are the subject of Mr. Webb’s request, is active and ongoing in the Worcester District Court. See Commonwealth v. Styve M. Tchoutoua, Worcester District Court, Docket No. 2562CR006371 (December 1, 2025). Conclusion 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). Additionally, I decline to opine on the applicability of Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law to the requested 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).

Allison Mondello SPR25/3519 Page 3 December 11, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: David Webb