Johnson-Nicolas, Tahirah v. Suffolk County District Attorney's Office (SPR 20260057)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 21, 2026 SPR26/0057 Jacob Gunderson Records Access Officer Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office One Bulfinch Place Boston, MA 02114 Dear Mr. Gunderson: I have received the petition of Tahirah Johnson-Nicolas appealing the response of the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office (Office) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 22, 2025, Ms. Johnson-Nicolas requested the following: … in connection with the above-referenced matter [Docket Number 2507CR001193] … any exculpatory, impeaching, or material evidence in the possession, custody, of control of the Commonwealth…. Specifically, I request the following, to the extent they exist: [1] Any surveillance or security video (including city-owned or third-party footage) that was obtained, reviewed, referenced, or relied upon by law enforcement or the prosecution in connection with this incident. [2] Any reports, notes, memoranda, or communications reflecting law enforcement’s review or consideration of surveillance or security footage related to this matter. [3] Any materials reflecting charging decisions, including documents or records relevant to the dismissal, reinstatement, or modification of charges in this case, to the extent such materials are discoverable. [4] Any evidence tending to negate guilt, mitigate culpability, or impeach the credibility of any witness, including prior inconsistent statements or acknowledgments by law enforcement. 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

Jacob Gunderson SPR26/0057 Page 2 January 21, 2026 On January 5, 2026, the Office provided a response and assigned reference number 251222A to this request. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Johnson-Nicolas petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0057, 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 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 her appeal petition, Ms. Johnson-Nicolas contends: The District Attorney’s Office has withheld all responsive records under the investigatory exemption, G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26(f), and the deliberative process exemption, G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26(d), based on generalized assertions that the case “remains open.” These blanket withholdings are inconsistent with Massachusetts public records law. … The Office’s January 5th Response In its January 5, 2026 response, the Office withheld responsive records, citing Exemptions (d) and (f) of the Public Records Law and asserting, “…you seek documents from Commonwealth v. Johnson-Nicolas, Tahirah, 2507CR001193. This case remains open.” 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

Jacob Gunderson SPR26/0057 Page 3 January 21, 2026 the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. This office has reviewed the trial court’s docket and verified that the criminal litigation, relating to the records that are the subject of Ms. Johnson-Nicolas’ appeal, is active and ongoing in Boston Municipal Court, Dorchester Division. See Commonwealth v. Tahirah Johnson- Nicolas, (BMC Dorchester Docket No. 2507CR001193) (April 30, 2025). 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: Tahirah Johnson-Nicolas