Valentino, Gianna v. Massachusetts State Police (SPR 20260955)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 27, 2026 SPR26/0955 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 Gianna Valentino appealing the response of the Massachusetts 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 March 6, 2026, Ms. Valentino requested “any audio and or body camera regarding the suspicious unwitnessed death of [an identified individual.]” The Department responded on March 6, 2026 and March 13, 2026, and assigned reference number P002531-030626 to this request. Unsatisfied with the Department’s responses, Ms. Valentino petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0955, 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. 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 SPR26/0955 Page 2 March 27, 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. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Valentino contends: I am appealing this because there is no criminal investigation.… The death certificate has been finalized. They found no foul play nor did the medical examiners’s office conclude that it was anything other than a complication…. The medical examiner also noted that he was not injured in any way. The Department’s March 6th and March 13th Responses On March 6, 2026, the Department acknowledged receipt of Ms. Valentino’s request. On March 13, 2026, 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). 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

Allison Mondello SPR26/0955 Page 3 March 27, 2026 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: After a diligent search of its records systems, the Department has identified the following responsive records: Case 2025-106-869 Please be advised that, according to information provided to this office, this incident remains the subject of an ongoing investigation. In light of the pending investigation, the record(s) you seek are not subject to public disclosure at this time pursuant to G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f), which 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. Bougas v. Chief of Police, 371 Mass. 59, 62 (1976). [sic] … Based upon the forgoing and given the pendency of the investigation, the Department denies the request. There is no date by which the investigation will be

Allison Mondello SPR26/0955 Page 4 March 27, 2026 complete. Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear how all the records are related to an investigation and whether the investigation remains ongoing. Also, the Department did not provide any supporting information to demonstrate how disclosure 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 to withhold records under Exemption (f). Further, it is uncertain how identifying information of complainants or voluntary witnesses cannot be redacted from the responsive records and segregable portions provided. See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90 (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Valentino 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. Valentino may further appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Gianna Valentino