Shibley, Craig v. Department of State Police (SPR 20260966)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 31, 2026 SPR26/0966 Allison Mondello Records Access Officer Massachusetts Department of State Police 470 Worcester Road Framingham, MA 01702 Dear Ms. Mondello: I have received the petition of Craig Shibley appealing the nonresponse 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 5, 2026, Mr. Shibley requested the following: [C]opies of records related to the 1951 murder of State Trooper Alje Savela, which remains an unsolved case identified as Case File #0329. The incident occurred 74 years ago, and I am particularly interested in the historical documentation associated with this investigation. I am specifically requesting the following records in the possession of the Massachusetts State Police: 1. All documentary records associated with Massachusetts State Police Case File #0329 concerning the 1951 murder of Trooper Savela, currently stored within the agency’s ACISS system and/or the Worcester State Police Detective Unit (SPDU) evidence room. This includes, but is not limited to, the following categories of records: * Ballistics report and related scene images of all casings inside and outside Trooper Savela’s vehicle; * Witness statements. * All crime scene photographs, both exterior and interior. * Autopsy reports. * Inventory list generated from the crime scene. * Interview transcripts or summaries from Barre Police Department personnel, specifically mentioning [a list of named individuals]. * All other interview records on file, including those pertaining to [a list of named individuals]. 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 SPR26/0966 Page 2 March 31, 2026 * Incident summaries. * Fingerprint and handprint reports related to evidence found at the crime scene on Trooper Savela’s vehicle, including reports from the FBI laboratory and the State Police laboratory. * The names of any private forensic labs used by MSP for certain tests to be performed from 2010 - 2025. 2. A comprehensive inventory list of all physical evidence related to Case File #0329, specifically detailing items stored within the Worcester SPDU’s climate- controlled facility, including but not limited to, a note left by Trooper Savela at a Barre residence prior to his murder. I understand the Department assigned reference number P001477-020526 to this request. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR26/0600 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 6, 2026). In my March 6th determination, I ordered the Department to provide Mr. Shibley with a response to the request. Subsequently, the Department responded on March 16, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Shibley petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/0966, 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 SPR26/0966 Page 3 March 31, 2026 Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Shibley requests that this office: 1. Order the Massachusetts State Police to conduct a good-faith review of responsive records (including the Review Document that launched Case File 2013-115-0329; 2. Require the agency to produce all non-exempt records; 3. Require segregation and redaction of exempt material where applicable; 4. Direct MSP to provide a detailed inventory of physical evidence associated with Case File 2013- 115-0329; 5. Require a more detailed written justification for any continued withholding of records[.] The Department’s March 16th Response In its March 16, 2026 response, the Department cites Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law for withholding responsive records. 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. 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

Allison Mondello SPR26/0966 Page 4 March 31, 2026 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 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 March 16th response, under Exemption (f), the Department argues the following: Please be advised, the Department has identified responsive records, however please note that, 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, cl. 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. See Bougas v. Chief of Police, 371 Mass. 59, 62 (1976). The Supervisor of Public Records has conclusively determined that disclosure of investigatory materials related to an active prosecution and/or ongoing investigation prior to its conclusion could harm ongoing prosecutorial and/or investigation efforts by law enforcement. See Opinion No. SPR15/203 (upholding

Allison Mondello SPR26/0966 Page 5 March 31, 2026 the Department’s withholding of records related to an ongoing investigation) and Opinion No. SPR20/2185 and Opinion No. SPR 21/2423 (“Where the Department has previously explained that the responsive records are associated with an active and ongoing investigation and prosecution and has now explained how the requested records relate to the ongoing investigation and prosecution, I find the Department has met its burden to withhold the responsive records, at this time, pursuant to Exemption (f)”). See also SPR22/0808. 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). Additionally, pursuant to G.L. c 38 s. 4, the “district attorney or his law enforcement representative shall direct and control the investigation of [a] death” within his or her respective jurisdiction. In this instance, State Police Detectives assigned to the Worcester County investigated the subject case and the Worcester County District Attorney’s Office maintains jurisdiction over it. Please submit this request to the Worcester District Attorney’s Office, which has indicated it will formally respond to the request. Accordingly, please forward any further inquiries to ADA Mark Relation at the Worcester County District Attorney’s Office[.] Based on the Department’s March 17th response, while the Department references consultation with the Worcester District Attorney’s Office, the Department’s response did not provide supporting information on how the investigative process is currently ongoing. It is uncertain how disclosure “would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest” as required by Exemption (f). Based upon the above, the Department must clarify its response. Additionally, it is unclear from the Department’s response, which specific records the Department intends to withhold. The Department must identify the records, categories of records, or portions of records it intends to withhold under Exemption (f). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based”). It is further uncertain why the records must be withheld in their entirety. 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

Allison Mondello SPR26/0966 Page 6 March 31, 2026 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). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Shibley 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. Mr. Shibley 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: Craig Shibley