Matthew Stout v. Department of State Police (SPR 20253755)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 7, 2026 SPR25/3755 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 Matt Stout, of the Boston Globe, 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 2, 2025, Mr. Stout requested a “[c]opy of body cam footage from the arrest of [an identified individual] on cocaine trafficking charges.” The Department responded on December 16, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Stout petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3755, 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. 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 SPR25/3755 Page 2 January 7, 2026 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 December 16th Response In its December 16, 2025 response, the Department cited Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested record in its entirety. Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Stout states, “I am appealing on the basis that the department provides no underlying reason about why the footage would prejudice the investigation into [an identified individual]. Body-worn camera footage is a type of record that the Massachusetts State Police have also routinely released in the past amid investigations or soon after the underlying events, be it incidents, traffic stops, or arrests.” 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 v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass 59, 62 (1976). 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. 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

Allison Mondello SPR25/3755 Page 3 January 7, 2026 candid in recording their observations, hypotheses and interim conclusions.” Bougas, 371 Mass. at 62; cited with approval in Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289. 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. In its response, the Department states, “[t]he Department conducted a diligent search of its records and is withholding records responsive to your request consistent with G. L. c. 4, § 7 cl. 26(f), where these records are regarding an ongoing prosecution by the Hampden County District Attorney’s Office for a case pending in Springfield District Court. . . . Releasing information and records regarding an on-going prosecution would detract from effective law enforcement and could prejudice investigative efforts. There is an interest in preserving the integrity of the investigation and the prosecution. It is not in the public’s interest to release this information, as such release could taint any potential jury pool in the criminal prosecution. Therefore, the records you seek are not available currently pursuant to G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26(f).” Active 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 matter, In the Matter of Cook LeMar D, Springfield District Court, 2579BP00256, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). I

Allison Mondello SPR25/3755 Page 4 January 7, 2026 further decline to opine on the applicability of Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law to the requested record. 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: Matt Stout