Walsh, Patrick v. Massachusetts State Police (SPR 20260472)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 20, 2026 SPR26/0472 Allison Mondello Public Records Manager Department of Massachusetts State Police 50 Maple Street Milford, MA 01757 Dear Ms. Mondello: I have received the petition of Patrick Walsh 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 February 4, 2026, Mr. Walsh requested, “[a]ll body-worn camera (BWC) footage and dashboard camera footage from all officers who responded to the shooting incident on Tuesday, February 3, 2026, beginning at approximately 5:00 PM at 20 Main Street and continuing through the standoff at the Family Dollar/Big Y Plaza on West Main Street.” The Department provided a response on February 9, 2026, assigning the request reference number P001438-020426. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Walsh petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0472, 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. Att’y 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 SPR26/0472 Page 2 February 20, 2026 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 February 9th Response In its February 9, 2026 response, the Department stated it was withholding an identified record under Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f). Current Appeal In his February 9, 2026 appeal to this office, Mr. Walsh stated, “[t]his is a fatal police involved shooting. MSP being transparent is critical to maintain public trust. The suspect is deceased. According to news sites the police are investigating their use of deadly force…” 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

Allison Mondello SPR26/0472 Page 3 February 20, 2026 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 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. Under Exemption (f), the Department stated the following: After a diligent search of its records systems, the Department has identified the following responsive records: [1] Body-Worn and/or Cruiser-Mounted Camera footage Please be advised that this incident remains the subject of an ongoing investigations. In light of the pending investigation, the record(s) you seek are not subject to public disclosure at this time. . . Releasing information and records regarding an on-going investigation would detract from effective law enforcement and could prejudice investigative efforts. The Department is compelled to conduct a thorough and objective investigation of the events into this incident. There is an interest in preserving the integrity of the investigation and any potential subsequent prosecution. It is not in the public’s interest to release this information, as such release could potentially taint any potential jury pool if the investigation results in a criminal prosecution. Therefore, the records you seek are not available currently pursuant to G.L. c. 4, §7, cl. 26 (f). Based upon the forgoing and given the pendency of the investigation, the

Allison Mondello SPR26/0472 Page 4 February 20, 2026 Department denies the request. There is no date certain by which the investigation will be complete, I recommend you re-submit your request at a later time. Although portions of the responsive record may fall under Exemption (f), it is uncertain how the record can be withheld in its entirety. The Department did not provide adequate supporting information to demonstrate how disclosure of any segregable portion of the record “would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest[,]” as required under Exemption (f). In addition, the Department must explain whether the record can be redacted so that segregable portions of the record can be provided. See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 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). The Department must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Walsh with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with the order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten 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. Mr. Walsh may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Patrick Walsh