Jill Vaglica v. Department of State Police (SPR 20253860)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 15, 2026 SPR25/3860 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 Jill Vaglica 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 November 22, 2024, Ms. Vaglica requested, “a copy of [a]ll police incident reports and CAD reports for [an identified individual]. Please search as far back as your computer system dates back in your response. Please be sure to check both this [individual’s] maiden name and current name and spelling variations…” The Department responded on November 22, 2024 and October 2, 2025, assigning the request reference number P012475-112224. Unsatisfied with the Department’s responses, Ms. Vaglica petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3860, 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 SPR25/3860 Page 2 January 15, 2026 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 Department’s November 22nd and October 2nd Responses In its November 22, 2024 response, the Department acknowledged receipt of Ms. Vaglica’s request. In its October 2, 2025 response, the Department cited the Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) Act, as it operates through Exemption (a), and Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold Administrative Journal Extract 2012-0C6-003917 and Incident Report 2012-0C6-003917 in their entirety. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a), (c). Current Appeal In her December 29, 2025 appeal to this office, Ms. Vaglica objected to the Department’s withholding of the responsive records under CORI and Exemption (c). 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, 154 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-546 (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.

Allison Mondello SPR25/3860 Page 3 January 15, 2026 Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) The current definition of CORI is as follows: “Criminal offender record information”, records and data in any communicable form compiled by a Massachusetts criminal justice agency which concern an identifiable individual and relate to the nature or disposition of a criminal charge, an arrest, a pre-trial proceeding, other judicial proceedings, previous hearings conducted pursuant to section 58A of chapter 276 where the defendant was detained prior to trial or released with conditions under subsection (2) of section 58A of chapter 276, sentencing, incarceration, rehabilitation, or release. Such information shall be restricted to information recorded in criminal proceedings that are not dismissed before arraignment. Criminal offender record information shall not include evaluative information, statistical and analytical reports and files in which individuals are not directly or indirectly identifiable, or intelligence information. Criminal offender record information shall be limited to information concerning persons who have attained the age of 18 and shall not include any information concerning criminal offenses or acts of delinquency committed by any person before he attained the age of 18; provided, however, that if a person under the age of 18 was adjudicated as an adult in superior court or adjudicated as an adult after transfer of a case from a juvenile session to another trial court department, information relating to such criminal offense shall be criminal offender record information. Criminal offender record information shall not include information concerning any offenses which are not punishable by incarceration. G. L. c. 6, § 167. In its October 2nd response, under CORI, the Department argues, “[e]ach report relates to both an arrest and to a criminal charge against a specifically named individual. Accordingly, they are not subject to public release.” Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear how the responsive records may be withheld under CORI. Specifically the Department has not demonstrated that the withheld records constitute “information recorded in criminal proceedings that are not dismissed before arraignment” as defined in G. L. c. 6, § 167. The Department must clarify this matter. Exemption (c) Exemption (c) applies to: personnel and medical files or information and any other materials or date relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; provided, however, that this subclause

Allison Mondello SPR25/3860 Page 4 January 15, 2026 shall not apply to records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Second Clause – Privacy Analysis under the second clause of Exemption (c) is subjective in nature and requires a balancing of the public’s right to know against the relevant privacy interest at stake. Torres v. Att’y Gen., 391 Mass. 1, 9 (1984); Att’y Gen. v Assistant Comm’r of Real Prop. Dep’t, 380 Mass. 623, 625 (1980). Therefore, determinations must be made on a case-by-case basis. There are factors to consider when assessing the weight of the privacy interest at stake: (1) whether disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities; (2) whether the materials sought contain intimate details of a highly personal nature; and (3) whether the same information is available from other sources. See People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280, 292 (2017). The types of personal information which the second clause of this exemption is designed to protect includes: marital status, paternity, substance abuse, government assistance, family disputes and reputation. Id. at 292 n.13; see also Doe v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 415, 427 (1988) (holding that a motor vehicle licensee has a privacy interest in disclosure of his social security number). When analyzing a privacy claim, there is a balancing test which provides that where the public interest in obtaining the requested information substantially outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy, the private interest in preventing disclosure must yield. PETA, 477 Mass. at 291. The public has a recognized interest in knowing whether public servants are carrying out their duties in a law abiding and efficient manner. Id. at 292. In its October 2nd response, under Exemption (c), the Department argues, “[i]n this instance, the Department deems the records and photographs sought to implicate matters of intimate detail of a highly personal and private nature. The Department asserts that the privacy exemption clause exempts from public disclosure information relating to and surrounding such tragic and sensitive matters. See, e.g., Opinion of the Supervisor of Public Records, SPR05/063 (emergency 911 call of family member concerning suicide attempt of another family member not subject to public dissemination pursuant to privacy exemption of G.L. c. 4, §7, cl. 26 (c)).” Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be upon the records custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based . . .”); see also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511.

Allison Mondello SPR25/3860 Page 5 January 15, 2026 Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear how the responsive records are exempt from disclosure under Exemption (c). The Department has not demonstrated that the requested records contain intimate details of a highly personal nature, nor that disclosing the requested records constitutes an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. It is also not clear whether the requested records are available from other sources. Further, the Department must provide additional information with respect to the balancing test which examines whether the public interest in obtaining the requested records outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy. The Department must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Vaglica with a response to her request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Ms. Vaglica may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jill Vaglica