MacDonald, Scott v. Department of State Police (SPR 20260007)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 16, 2026 SPR26/0007 Allison Mondello Public Records Manager Office of the Chief Legal Counsel Massachusetts Department of State Police 50 Maple Street Milford, MA 01757 Dear Ms. Mondello: I have received the petition of Scott MacDonald appealing the response of the Department of State Police (Department/MSP) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 28, 2025, Mr. MacDonald requested, “[a]rrest report and all related statements of individuals and officers involved from Operation Firewall for specific arrest of [an identified individual], 29, of Hull, is charged with possession of child pornography [o]n or about 11/10/25.” On December 30, 2025, the Department provided a response and assigned reference number P014062-122825 to this request. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. MacDonald petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0007, 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 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 SPR26/0007 Page 2 January 16, 2026 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. MacDonald contends: The Department has denied the request in its entirety pursuant to G.L. c. 4, §7, cl. 26(f), asserting that all responsive records constitute investigatory materials relating to an ongoing prosecution and that disclosure would prejudice effective law enforcement. While I acknowledge that investigatory materials may be exempt during an active criminal prosecution, I respectfully contend that the Department has not met its burden to justify a categorical denial of all responsive records, particularly those that are purely administrative or factual in nature and do not implicate investigatory strategy, witness testimony, or confidential techniques. The Department’s December 30th Response In its December 30, 2025 response, the Department withheld responsive records, citing Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law and asserting, “…the records you seek relate to an on- going and active criminal prosecution which is now pending in the Hingham District Court….” G. L. c. 4, § 7 (26) (f). 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. On January 5, 2026, the Department provided the docket number of the pending litigation. 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. MacDonald’s appeal, is active and ongoing in Hingham District Court. See Commonwealth v. Joseph Daniel Constantino, (Hingham District Court Docket No. 2558CR000834) (November 5, 2025).

Allison Mondello SPR26/0007 Page 3 January 16, 2026 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). 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: Scott MacDonald