Motta, Camille v. Department of State Police (SPR 20260389)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 19, 2026 SPR26/0389 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 Camille Motta 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 21, 2025, Ms. Motta requested, … copies of all video and audiovisual recordings created, received, or maintained by the Massachusetts State Police in connection with my arrest and detention on December 19, . . . in Millbury, Massachusetts. This request includes, but is not limited to, the following records: [1] All body-worn camera footage from any Massachusetts State Police trooper involved in or present during: The traffic stop [;] My arrest[;] Transport[;] Booking[;] Detention[;] Release[.] [2] All cruiser-mounted camera footage, including: Dash camera video from the beginning of the stop[;] Exterior and interior camera footage from the trooper’s SUV that initiated the stop[;] Any additional responding vehicles[.] [3] All in-vehicle audio and video recordings, including radio transmissions captured in the cruiser during the incident. [4] All booking-area video and audio recordings from the Massachusetts State Police barracks, including: Intake and booking process[;] Holding areas[;] Hallways[;] Any areas where I was escorted or detained[.] [5] All surveillance and holding-area video from inside the Millbury State Police barracks, covering the entire duration of my presence, from the moment I entered 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

William H. Doyle, Esq. SPR26/0389 Page 2 February 19, 2026 the barracks until the moment I exited. [6] Any associated logs or metadata identifying: Troopers involved[;] Camera Numbers[;] Recording times[;] Incident or case numbers[;] Any retention, deletion, or redaction notes related to these recordings[.] Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR26/0286 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 4, 2026). In my February 4th determination, I learned that the Department provided Ms. Motta with a response dated February 2, 2026. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Motta petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0389, 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, Ms. Motta asserts, “I would like to appeal the MSPD for the decision. I am seeking this information for self analysis and own research.” The Department’s February 2nd Response In its February 2, 2026 response, the Department states, “[t]he Department has identified the following potentially responsive record(s) in its possession, custody, or control: 2025-CTRP- 4381[.] Further, the Department conducted a diligent search and was able to locate the following responsive videos:”

William H. Doyle, Esq. SPR26/0389 Page 3 February 19, 2026 [1] [Identified] Trooper BWC2-5442 | 1 Video(s) [2] [Identified] Trooper BWC2-5401 | 1 Video(s) [3] [Identified] Trooper CMC 1173 | 1 Video(s) The Department cited Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested records in their entirety. Exemption (f) Exemption (f) permits the withholding of: investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of the public view by law enforcement or other investigatory officials the disclosure of which materials would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f). A custodian of records generally must demonstrate a prejudice to investigative efforts in order to withhold requested records. Information relating to an ongoing investigation may be withheld if disclosure could alert suspects to the activities of investigative officials. Confidential investigative techniques may also be withheld indefinitely if disclosure is deemed to be prejudicial to future law enforcement activities. Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 62 (1976). Redactions may be appropriate where they serve to preserve the anonymity of voluntary witnesses. Antell v. Att’y Gen., 52 Mass. App. Ct. 244, 248 (2001); Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 290 n.18 (1979). Exemption (f) invites a “case-by- case consideration” of whether disclosure “would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest.” See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90. As a matter of course, witness provided information is essential to efficient and effective Law enforcement. This exemption is intended to allow investigative officials to provide an assurance of confidentiality to private citizens so that they will speak openly and voluntarily about matters. Bougas, 371 Mass. at 62. Any information contained in a witness statement, which if disclosed would create a grave risk of directly or indirectly identifying the voluntary witness is subject to withholding Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Ret. Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 438 (1983). The disclosure of the names and other identifying information of victims, complainants and voluntary witnesses may deter other potential witnesses and citizens from providing information to law enforcement agencies in future investigations. Therefore, Exemption (f) will allow the withholding of the name and identifying details of any victims, complainants and voluntary witnesses, and where the individuals can be indirectly identified even with redaction. To properly claim that Exemption (f) applies, a custodian must demonstrate that the disclosure of the records would have a prejudicial effect on its investigative efforts. This can be

William H. Doyle, Esq. SPR26/0389 Page 4 February 19, 2026 accomplished by describing how the records fall into one of three categories. These are the three categories that justify withholding records under Exemption (f):  The records reflect an ongoing investigation, such that any information relating to an ongoing investigation that could potentially alert suspects or targets to the activities of investigative officials;  The records reflect internal techniques, procedures, or sources, such that their disclosure would prejudice not only ongoing, but future law enforcement efforts; or  Disclosure of records would cause a chilling effect, because the exemption allows investigative officials to provide an assurance of confidentiality to individuals so that they will speak openly about matters under investigation. Such records in this third category include: any details in statements that directly or indirectly identify a private citizen who volunteers as a witness; an entire statement if the identity of witnesses is known to the requestor; and information voluntarily provided by an individual or entity to aid in the investigation. In its February 2nd response, the Department argues the following under Exemption (f): It is well settled that the premature disclosure of witness testimony and other materials connected to the pending criminal case would be prejudicial and “could detract from effective law enforcement to such a degree as to operate in derogation, and not in support of the public interest.”… The policy considerations underlying the exemption are well settled. See, Bougas (“among them the avoidance of premature disclosure of the Commonwealth’s case prior to trial, the prevention of the disclosure of confidential investigative techniques, procedures, or sources of information, the encouragement of individual citizens to come forward and speak freely with police concerning matters under investigation, and the creation of initiative that police officers might be completely candid in recording their observations, hypotheses and interim”). The Department maintains that the investigative records at issue exclusively contain, or have interwoven throughout, information that, if disclosed, would prejudice any criminal trial in this matter by: 1) revealing non-public information to the prospective jury pool, thereby narrowing the number of potential impartial jurors; 2) releasing indirectly the names of potential witnesses, and any statements thereto, thereby exposing them to public inquiry, chilling their cooperation, and/or predetermining their testimony; and 3) providing a roadmap to the prosecutions legal strategies, thereby giving the defense an unfair advantage. For these reasons, it would not be in the collective public interest not to disclose these records in their entirety at this time. Based on the forgoing and given the pendency of the criminal case, the Department denies the request.

William H. Doyle, Esq. SPR26/0389 Page 5 February 19, 2026 Where the Department has explained that the records pertain to an active and ongoing investigation and that disclosure would “. . . [expose potential witnesses] to public inquiry, chilling their cooperation, and/or predetermining their testimony[,] [and] provid[e] a roadmap to the prosecutions legal strategies . . .[,]” I find the Department may permissibly claim Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested records at this time. It should be noted that a change in the status of the investigation could impact the applicability of Exemption (f). Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Ms. Motta is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Camille Motta