Parents, Concerned v. Massachusetts State Police (SPR 20260940)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 24, 2026 SPR26/0940 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 the Concerned Parents of Massachusetts (requestor) appealing the response of the Massachusetts Department 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 10th, the requestor requested: [1] Copy of any Massachusetts State Police (MSP) public records responsive to [an identified case] (after [an identified individual] died on 9/13/24 after being hospitalized for a “training exercise” injury [an identified individual] sustained, while at [an identified address] in New Braintree) your state agency handled, including copies of[:] [a] Police Reports [that are dated between September 10, 2024 and February 10, 2026][;] [b] Evidence Catalogs (including with Massachusetts State Police (MSP), Norfolk County District Attorney Office (NCDAO), New Braintree Police Department (New Braintree PD), United States Department of Justice (DOJ) or Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA)) [that are dated between September 10, 2024 and February 10, 2026][;] [c] Body Cam recordings (including with MSP, NCDAO, New Braintree PD, DOJ or DEA) [that are dated between September 10, 2024 and February 10, 2026][;] [d] Search Warrants (SW) including SW Applications, SW Execution Reports, SW Case Reports, SW Returns (including with MSP, NCDAO, New Braintree PD, DOJ or DEA) [that are dated between September 10, 2024 and February 10, 2026][;] [e] Copy of any 911 call Transcripts, Audio and Log Sheets [dated between September 10, 2024 and February 10, 2026] that are responsive to [an 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 SPR26/0940 Page 2 March 24, 2026 identified individual] and/or [an identified address], during or after he was injured from a “training exercise”, while at [an identified address] in New Braintree located at [an identified address] Including any responsive public records from your 911 system and State Police Regional Dispatch Center [an identified address], which according to our sources exist, even if diverted 911 calls for example of your 911 operators transferred any of the calls or let callers know to call another number or any calls within the Massachusetts State Police agency or intra agency with outside law enforcement or other agencies or police departments etc [sic][.] [2] Copy of any Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) operation contract or policy with MSP and federal agencies including United States Department of Justice (DOJ) or Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) regarding [an identified case] or other multi agency task forces [that are dated between September 10, 2024 and February 10, 2026][.] Previous Appeal The requested records were the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR26/0830 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 10, 2026). In my March 10th determination, I ordered the Department to provide the requestor with a response to the request. The Department responded on March 11, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, the requestor petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0940, 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.

Allison Mondello SPR26/0940 Page 3 March 24, 2026 Current Appeal In the requestor’s appeal petition, the requestor contends: [1] Mass State Police failed to produce any responsive records and wrongly used blanket exemptions G.L. c. 4, s. 7, cl. 26 (f) where it withheld responsive records … and not identified as what specific categories of records exist or total count of records responsive for [Items 1a-1d][.] … [2] Mass State Police failed to produce any responsive records and wrongly used blanket exemptions G.L. c. 4, s. 7, cl. 26 (f) where it withheld in entirety responsive records, and failed to address at all any responsive records for [Item 1e] … and it did not identify if any specific categories of records exist for [Item 1e] or total count of records responsive[.] … [3] Mass State Police failed to produce any responsive records for [Item 2][.]… [4] Mass State Police failed to specify how claimed exemptions actually applied to each individual record for [Items 1a-1e], where it withheld responsive records[.]… [5] Mass State Police failed to diligently search within all of our parameters for responsive records or clarify if the peer state, municipality or federal agencies had possession, custody or control of those responsive records for [Item 1e and Item 2][.]… The Department’s March 11th Response On March 11, 2026, the Department stated, with regard to Item 2 of the request, the Department is unable to locate any responsive records. With regard to Item 1, the Department stated that it withheld certain records pursuant to Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f). 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).

Allison Mondello SPR26/0940 Page 4 March 24, 2026 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. The Supreme Judicial Court has stated that Exemption (f) aims at “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 conclusions.” Bougas, 371 Mass. at 62; cited with approval in Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289. Confidential investigative techniques may also be withheld indefinitely if disclosure is deemed to be prejudicial to future law enforcement activities. Bougas, 371 Mass. at 62. 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. In its response, the Department states: …the Department denies you request for recordsas [sic] they are currently the subject of an ongoing criminal prosecution…. As such, the records that you

Allison Mondello SPR26/0940 Page 5 March 24, 2026 request are not subject to public disclosure by the Department and the Department denies your request pursuant to G.L. c. 4, s. 7, cl. 26 (f). G.L. c. 4, s. 7, cl. 26 (f) specifically exempts from public disclosure 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. The policy considerations underlying the exemption are well settled. See Bougas v. Chief of Police, 371 Mass. 59, 62 (1976) (“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 conclusions”). Although the Department claims it has an open investigation regarding the requested records, it is unclear how the records, in their entirety, relate to the ongoing investigation. It is unclear from the Department’s response whether the records contain confidential investigative techniques that would be prejudicial to the ongoing investigation if disclosed. The Department did not demonstrate how disclosure of any portion of the responsive records “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). The Department must explain whether the records can be redacted so that segregable portions can be provided. See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90 (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). It is additionally uncertain what records the Department possesses that are responsive to the request. To deny access to a record under the Public Records Law, a records access officer must identify the record, categories of records, or portions of the record it intends to withhold. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3)(c)(4). Consequently, the Department must identify the records in its possession that it is withholding under Exemption (f). 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 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. The requestor may further appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Allison Mondello SPR26/0940 Page 6 March 24, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Concerned Parents of Massachusetts