Scott D. Carter v. Department of Criminal Justice Information Services (SPR 20253808)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 9, 2026 SPR25/3808 Agapi Koulouris, Esq. General Counsel Department of Criminal Justice Information Services 200 Arlington Street Chelsea, MA 02150 Dear Attorney Koulouris: I have received the petition of Scott Carter appealing the response of the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services (Department/DCJIS) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 30, 2025, Mr. Carter requested, …limited to [an identified individual’s] expungement matters (Bristol, Middlesex, and Suffolk County orders), for the period from the date of those expungement orders through present: [1] Audit logs, deletion logs, or internal system records reflecting the removal or destruction of those expunged records from:  Probation Central File (PCF)  Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI)  Court Activity Record Information (CARI)  Any other database maintained by OCP or DCJIS in which such records were once stored. [2] Any indexes, metadata, backup files, or shadow entries that reflect the prior existence, tagging, or attempted deletion of those records. [3] Any certifications, reports, or internal communications documenting that expungement of those matters was executed in accordance with G.L. c. 276, § 100E. 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

Agapi Koulouris, Esq. SPR25/3808 Page 2 January 9, 2026 The Department responded on October 22, 2025, November 3, 2025, and November 7, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s responses, Mr. Carter petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3808, 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. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Carter contends: 1. Inadequate Search / Failure to Identify Records Destroyed During the Pendency of the Request … The agency did not explain whether the responsive records were destroyed before or after the request was filed. 2. Failure to Provide a Proper Certificate of Non-Existence (G.L. c. 66, § 10(e)) DCJIS repeatedly stated, without specificity or certification, that it “does not possess responsive records.” … 3. Internal Contradictions Require Clarification DCJIS has now taken mutually inconsistent positions, including:  claiming not to possess responsive records,  acknowledging that it does receive and maintain expungement notifications from the Trial Court,  asserting that the expungement notifications are destroyed,

Agapi Koulouris, Esq. SPR25/3808 Page 3 January 9, 2026  and simultaneously stating that such communications would be exempt under G.L. c. 276 §§ 100O–100Q if they existed. These inconsistencies prevent meaningful review and require the Supervisor’s intervention to clarify whether: 1. Responsive records existed at the time of my request, 2. They were destroyed during the pendency of the request, and 3. Exemptions are being asserted over records the agency simultaneously claims not to possess. 4. Failure to Identify the Custodian of Deletion Logs / Audit Trails …DCJIS did not identify:  the specific custodian(s),  their contact information,  or whether DCJIS itself ever maintained such backend logs, metadata, or synchronization events. The Department’s Responses In its October 22, 2025 response, the Department stated, In regard to paragraphs [1] and [2], DCJIS does not possess documents responsive to your request. Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 6, § 167𝐴 DCJIS provides installation, operation and maintenance of certain public safety data information systems including the Criminal Justice Information System (“CJIS”), but, does not possess the statutory authority or technical ability to expunge records from any public safety data information systems within its purview. The PCF and CARI systems noted in your request are part of the Massachusetts Trial Court system and not accessible to DCJIS. For purposes of your request, the CORI system refers to the summary of criminal court appearances transferred to the CJIS by the Massachusetts Trial Court and made available to criminal justice and non- criminal justice entities pursuant to the provisions of M.G.L. c. 6, § 172. DCJIS does not possess statutory or technical authority to expunge records from the CORI system and is not the custodian of these records. The CJIS system provided by DCJIS provides authorized users with access to CORI data, however, the Trial Court remains the custodian of said records. In regard to paragraph 3, DCJIS asserts that to the extent any such records exist, those records are exempt from public disclosure pursuant to M.G.L. c. 4, § 7 clause 26, paragraph (a) as records specifically exempt from public disclosure under state statute. Specifically, M.G.L. c. 276, § 100O…. In its November 3, 2025 response, the Department further clarified the following:

Agapi Koulouris, Esq. SPR25/3808 Page 4 January 9, 2026 To the extent any audit or deletion logs exist, the entities that expunge records would possess this information. This includes the Trial Court, Massachusetts State Police and associated police departments. … [Regarding Items 1 and 2:] DCJIS does not possess any responsive records. As previously noted, DCJIS does not possess any audit or compliance logs. [Regarding Item 3:] DCJIS role by statute is to provide notification and may possess records relating to communications made to the Massachusetts State Police and applicable police department when the Trial Court notifies DCJIS that a record has been expunged. Said records would be exempt from public disclosure pursuant to M.G.L. C. 276, §§ 100O and 100Q. … In its November 7, 2025 response, regarding Item 3 of Mr. Carter’s request, the Department explained: DCJIS conducted a search based on your request and does not possess records related to expungement notifications made either to DCJIS by the Trial Court or by DCJIS pursuant to M.G.L. C. 276, § 100L under [an identified name]. … DCJIS maintains an expungement notification for the period of time involved with providing the notifications to the MSP and police department pursuant to M.G.L. C. 276, § 100L. DCJIS then destroys these notifications at a later time consistent with expungement statute. Furthermore, the expungement statute does not require that departments confirm to DCJIS when a record has been expunged. Therefore, DCJIS would have no further information regarding the status of any actions taken by MSP or the police department pursuant to said notifications. No Duty to Create Records or Answer Questions Please be advised that the duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). Further, under the Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). However, in accordance with the Public Records Law, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). Further, the duty to comply with requests for records extends to identifying the agency or municipality that may be in possession, custody, or control of the public record sought, if known. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iii). Where the Department has confirmed that it does not possess records responsive to Mr. Carter’s request, has identified the entities that may be in possession of the records sought, and has no duty to answer questions, I find that the Department has met its burden in responding to this request under the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iii).

Agapi Koulouris, Esq. SPR25/3808 Page 5 January 9, 2026 Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Carter 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. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Scott Carter