Ryan, Cheryl v. Massachusetts State Police (SPR 20260310)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 12, 2026 SPR26/0310 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 Cheryl Ryan 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 December 15, 2025, Ms. Ryan requested: On 12/15/2025 at approximately 11:02 am, 11:04 am, and 11:06 am, Trooper(s) at the Middleboro State Police Barracks answered the phone . . . and were very rude, dismissive and refused to identify themselves per mass State Law. They refused to identify themselves for the purposes of being told a complaint was going to be filed against them. I would like the names, rank, badge numbers of the individual(s) answering phones on that day and time. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR26/0045 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 20, 2026). In my January 20th determination, I found that it was unclear whether the Department had provided a response. The Department responded on January 23, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. Ryan petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0310, 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 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 SPR26/0310 Page 2 February 12, 2026 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. The Department’s January 23rd Response In its January 23, 2026 response, the Department cited Exemption (n) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested records in their entirety. Exemption (n) Exemption (n) permits the withholding of: records, including, but not limited to, blueprints, plans, policies, procedures and schematic drawings, which relate to internal layout and structural elements, security measures, emergency preparedness, threat or vulnerability assessments, or any other records relating to the security or safety of persons or buildings, structures, facilities, utilities, transportation, cyber security or other infrastructure located within the commonwealth, the disclosure of which, in the reasonable judgment of the record custodian, subject to review by the supervisor of public records under subsection (c) of section 10 of chapter 66, is likely to jeopardize public safety or cyber security. G. L c. 4, § 7(26)(n). Exemption (n) allows for the withholding of certain records which if released would jeopardize public safety. The first prong of Exemption (n) examines “whether, and to what degree, the record sought resembles the records listed as examples in the statute;” specifically, the “inquiry is whether, and to what degree, the record is one a terrorist would find useful to maximize damage.” PETA, 477 Mass. at 289-90. The second prong of Exemption (n) examines “the factual and contextual support for the proposition that disclosure of the record is ‘likely to jeopardize public safety.’” Id. at 289-90. The PETA decision further provides that “[because the records custodian must exercise ‘reasonable judgment’ in making that determination, the primary focus on review is whether the

Allison Mondello SPR26/0310 Page 3 February 12, 2026 custodian has provided sufficient factual heft for the supervisor of public records or the reviewing court to conclude that a reasonable person would agree with the custodian’s determination given the context of the particular case.” Id. PETA also provides that “[t]hese two prongs of exemption (n) must be analyzed together, because there is an inverse correlation between them. That is, the more the record sought resembles the records enumerated in exemption (n), the lower the custodian’s burden in demonstrating ‘reasonable judgment’ and vice versa.” PETA, at 290. In its response, the Department states, “[a]fter review, the Department has determined that the responsive record(s) are exempt from public disclosure for the following reason. G. L. c.4, §7 cl. 26(n) ...” The Department recited a portion of the statute and stated, “[t]he records you are seeking contain the aforementioned information and therefore your request is denied.” Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear how the requested records resemble the types of records listed in the statute, nor how the information is one a terrorist would find useful to maximize damage. PETA, 477 Mass. at 289. Where the records bear little resemblance to the types listed in the statute, the burden on the custodian is correspondingly at its highest. See id. at 290-91. Further, I find that the Department has not provided “sufficient factual heft” to conclude that a reasonable person would agree that disclosure of the records is “likely to jeopardize public safety or cyber security” as required by Exemption (n). Id. at 290-91. The Department must clarify these matters. Further, based on the Department’s response, it is unclear what records it possesses that it withheld from disclosure. 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 . . .”). Therefore, the Department must identify the records it has in its possession that it is withholding under Exemption (n). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Ryan with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its 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. Ms. Ryan may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Allison Mondello SPR26/0310 Page 4 February 12, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Cheryl Ryan