Adam Nuñez v. Massachusetts State Police (SPR 20253612)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 22, 2025 SPR25/3612 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 Adam Nuñez, of Under the Broom, 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 December 8, 2025, Mr. Nuñez requested, the following records, “[t]he Commonwealth Fusion Center’s four Public Safety Planning Bulletins from 6/27/24, 6/28/24, 6/29/24, and 6/30/24 which the CFC identified in response to an earlier public records request.” The Department responded on December 8, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Nuñez petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3612, 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. 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 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 SPR25/3612 Page 2 December 22, 2025 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 December 8th Response In its December 8, 2025 response, the Department cited Exemption (n) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested records. Current Appeal In his December 8, 2025 appeal, Mr. Nuñez states, “[t]he four Public Safety Planning Bulletins in question being denied in this request have already been ruled to be released by the Supervisor of Records in a prior appeal, SPR25/3222, which has been attached below. I would ask the Supervisor of Records order the Massachusetts State Police to give a more substantive response to my request filed today on 12/8/2025 as soon as possible.” Exemption (n) Exemption (n) applies to: records, including, but not limited to, blueprints, plans, policies, procedures and schematic drawings, which relate to internal layout and structural elements, security measures, emergency preparedness, threat or vulnerability assessments, or any other records relating to the security or safety of persons or buildings, structures, facilities, utilities, transportation, cyber security or other infrastructure located within the commonwealth, the disclosure of which, in the reasonable judgment of the record custodian, subject to review by the supervisor of public records under subsection (c) of section 10 of chapter 66, is likely to jeopardize public safety or cyber security. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(n). Exemption (n) allows for the withholding of certain records which if released would jeopardize public safety. The first prong of Exemption (n) examines “whether, and to what degree, the record sought resembles the records listed as examples in the statute;” specifically, the “inquiry is whether, and to what degree, the record is one a terrorist ‘would find useful to maximize damage.’” People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280, 289-90 (2017). The second prong of Exemption (n) examines “the factual and contextual support for the proposition that disclosure of the record is ‘likely to jeopardize public safety.’” Id. at 289-90. The PETA decision further provides that “[b]ecause the records custodian must exercise ‘reasonable judgment’ in making that determination, the primary focus on review is whether the custodian has provided sufficient factual heft for the supervisor of public records or the

Allison Mondello SPR25/3612 Page 3 December 22, 2025 reviewing court to conclude that a reasonable person would agree with the custodian’s determination given the context of the particular case.” Id. PETA also provides that “[t]hese two prongs of exemption (n) must be analyzed together, because there is an inverse correlation between them. That is, the more the record sought resembles the records enumerated in exemption (n), the lower the custodian’s burden in demonstrating ‘reasonable judgment’ and vice versa.” PETA at 290. In its December 8, 2025 response, the Department provided the following in support of its position: The Department asserts that information sought directly relates to the security and safety of persons and buildings within the Commonwealth as well as revealing security measures, threat or vulnerability assessments, and emergency preparedness and the release of this information would jeopardize public safety. The Public Safety Planning Bulletin is a record of emergency preparedness and a threat or vulnerability assessment. The Bulletins are distributed by the Fusion Center to select law enforcement agencies for emergency and public safety planning purposes. It provides law enforcement with information including the date, time, and place of large public gatherings throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for purposes of emergency preparedness, threat or vulnerability assessments. The notice provides law enforcement with the ability to prepare for public safety including protecting persons exercising their right to peacefully assemble. The Massachusetts State Police Fusion Center “is the principal state repository for threat-related information, including criminal activity, threats to public safety, and terrorist activity….Fusion centers are focal points for the sharing of information between federal agencies and state and local governments. Information is gathered at the state and local levels; analyzed; and, when warranted, disseminated to the appropriate federal, state, local, tribal, or private- sector officials. In turn, federal agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation and DHS share intelligence and analysis with fusion centers, which may issue bulletins, briefings, and assessments on general criminal or intelligence information to their stakeholders, alerting them to emerging threats. In accordance with the Fusion Center Guidelines issued jointly by the US Department of Justice and DHS, CFC develops an annual production plan outlining the types of intelligence products it intends to provide to stakeholders…CFC distributes other intelligence products, including periodic bulletins, to stakeholders regarding police officer safety, situational awareness, high-profile-incident reports, and opioid-related arrests...” The Commonwealth Fusion Center’s mission is to collect and analyze information to produce and disseminate actionable intelligence to stakeholders for strategic

Allison Mondello SPR25/3612 Page 4 December 22, 2025 and tactical decision- making. This is done in order to identify, disrupt or deter criminal activity and terrorism, both domestic and international. An individual who sought to maximize damage to people in the Commonwealth would find the information in the Bulletin’s useful insofar as it would provide that individual with detail about and insight into the way the Commonwealth Fusion Center undertakes to protect the public. It would provide a terrorist with a list of all public gatherings in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on a particular day, regardless if the public is aware of the gathering in advance. This could jeopardize public safety by placing members of the public in danger and provide criminals with information to strategize a plan of attack on persons and infrastructure within the Commonwealth. Also, a terrorist would be able to determine where law enforcement resources may potentially be devoted to throughout the Commonwealth to help strategize a plan of attack anywhere in the Commonwealth. Accordingly, in the reasonable judgment of the Department, disclosure of the withheld information would be likely to jeopardize public safety and is not subject to disclosure pursuant to the safety and security exemption. Issues Addressed in Separate Appeal It is my understanding that this request and the issues raised in Mr. Nuñez’s appeal concerning the Department’s response were addressed in SPR25/3600 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 16, 2025), in which I ordered the Department to provide Mr. Nuñez with a further response to the request within ten business days. Once the Department provides a further response, Mr. Nuñez may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response to SPR25/3600 within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Adam Nuñez