Donovan, Jonathan v. Massachusetts State Police (SPR 20260907)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records SPR26/0907 March 26, 2026 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 Jonathan P. Donovan appealing the response of the Department of State Police (Department/MSP) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 18, 2025, Mr. Donovan rd, “…copies of the following public records related to Massachusetts Uniform Citation 893312AD:” [1] All body-worn camera (BWC) footage — including original video files and any related audio — captured by [identified] Massachusetts State on December 13, 2025 between 10:40 p.m. and 11:45 p.m. [2] The GPS log, vehicle location data, or electronic vehicle tracking records for the vehicle assigned to [identified] Officer) for the same date and time range: December 13, 2025, 10:40 p.m. through 11:45 p.m. This includes raw GPS data, timestamps, and any associated metadata (e.g., device ID or unit number). The Department provided Mr. Donovan with a response on March 12, 2026, and assigned reference number P013845-121825 to this request. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Donovan petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0907, 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 SPR26/0907 Page 2 March 26, 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. Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Donovan asserts, “[t]he MSP used a blanket exemption (f) without segregation. The Department withheld the entirety of the body-worn camera recording under G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26(f) without conducting or documenting the required segregability analysis. Under G.L. c. 66, §10, Massachusetts law requires agencies to release all reasonably segregable portions of a record, provide a specific explanation for each withheld portion, and avoid blanket assertions of exemptions. The denial letter does not identify any specific exempt segments, nor does it explain why every second of the video is exempt … The body-cam footage is needed for a quasi-judicial proceeding scheduled for 03/31/2026. I am the subject of a pending clerk- magistrate hearing, and the footage is necessary to prepare an accurate account of the incident, present relevant evidence, and respond to allegations made by [an identified].” Issues Addressed in Separate Appeal It is my understanding that this request and the issues raised in Mr. Donovan’s appeal concerning the Department’s response were addressed in SPR26/0893 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 26, 2026), in which the Department confirmed that criminal proceedings relating to the records at issue in Mr. Donovan’s request are currently pending before the Wareham District Court. See Commonwealth v. Jonathan Donovan (Wareham District Court No. 2560AC001174). In light of the pending litigation, I declined to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). I further declined to opine on the applicability of Exemption (f) to the responsive records. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed.

Allison Mondello SPR26/0907 Page 3 March 26, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jonathan P. Donovan