Two-Time, Jimmy v. Massachusetts State Police (SPR 20260274)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 6, 2026 SPR26/0274 Allison Mondello Public Records Manager Department of State Police 50 Maple Street Milford, MA 01757 Dear Ms. Mondello: I have received the petition of Jimmy Two-time (requestor) 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 October 27, 2025, the requestor sought, “a copy of the report from [a specified] interaction. I also need the names of all the officers involved and badge numbers. I am also seeking to obtain the body cam footage from each officer involved from the state police. . .[.]” The Department responded on October 27, and November 6, 2025, and assigned the request reference number P011661-102725. Unsatisfied with the responses, the requestor petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0274, 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. See 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 SPR26/0274 Page 2 February 6, 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 October 27th and November 6th Responses In its October 27, 2025 response, the Department acknowledged receipt of the request. In its November 6, 2025 response, the Department provided a redacted record and withheld four identified body-worn camera videos pursuant to the Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) Act as it operates through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law to redact responsive records. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). 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, 545-46 (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. Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) The current definition of CORI is as follows: Criminal offender record information, records and data in any communicable

Allison Mondello SPR26/0274 Page 3 February 6, 2026 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 November 6th response, the Department argued, “[w]ith the information provided in the request, the Department conducted a diligent search and located a responsive record which cannot be released because they constitute Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI)…. Releasing arrest reports would violate G. L. c. 6, § 172 which prohibits the dissemination of CORI information.… Each 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 and redacted under Exemption (a) and CORI. Specifically, it is unclear how the redacted information and the withheld body-worn camera videos constitute “information recorded in criminal proceedings that are not dismissed before arraignment.” Further, it is unclear how the body-worn camera videos must be withheld in their entirety. The Department must clarify whether segregable portions can be provided. See Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide the requestor with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its

Allison Mondello SPR26/0274 Page 4 February 6, 2026 Regulations within ten (10) 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. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jimmy Two-time