Valentino, Gianna v. Essex County District Attorney's Office (SPR 20260980)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 1, 2026 SPR26/0980 Kristen W. Jiang, Esq. Assistant District Attorney Appeals Division Essex County District Attorney’s Office 10 Federal Street Salem, MA 01970 Dear Attorney Jiang: I have received the petition of Gianna Valentino appealing the response of the Essex County District Attorney’s Office (Office) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On February 25, 2026, Ms. Valentino requested, “… copies of records pertaining to: Investigation and date of incident: Death of [an identified individual] Incident/date of death 12/16/2025 at [an identified address] Street In Saugus … I request the following specific record(s): all records that you can legally release regarding the above identified death.” The Office responded on February 26, 2026 and on February 27, 2026. Unsatisfied with the responses, Ms. Valentino petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0980, 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, § l0A(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 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

Kristen W. Jiang, Esq. SPR26/0980 Page 2 April 1, 2026 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 her appeal, Ms. Valentino stated, “[t]he Essex District Attorney office has not produced any records, did not deny my request, nor did they provide a timeframe or request an extension. Supposedly the state police officer who was the investigator is on vacation . I replied stating that if the individuals on vacation then go to their supervisor . I heard no response. I’m appealing this lack of response to my request. Due to the fact they can’t just not address the request because somebody just happens to be on vacation. Based on the loss cited below, they did not give me a timeframe for a response. Therefore, I’m appealing this and I want the SEC to order them to respond. The state trooper involved has a supervisor that can address this issue.” The Office’s February 26th and February 27th Responses In its February 26, 2026 response, the Office stated, “[w]e are in receipt of your requests for records on this investigation. The trooper assigned to the case is out on leave, but I am attempting to reach her to confirm that the investigation is closed. Once I confirm the same, I will release any portions of the file that are not subject to exemption.” In its February 27, 2026 response, the Office stated, “[a]s of right now, our case management system states that this investigation is still ongoing. As such, I am denying your request on the basis of the “investigatory” exemption pursuant to G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26(f). If we are able to reach the trooper assigned to the case (who, as I stated, is out on leave) and if she confirms that the investigation is closed (contrary to what I am seeing in our system), then I will release the records in our file with appropriate redaction (in light of the fact that you are not next of kin).” Exemption (c) Exemption (c) applies to: personnel and medical files or information and any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; provided, however, that this subclause shall not apply to records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c).

Kristen W. Jiang, Esq. SPR26/0980 Page 3 April 1, 2026 Second Clause – Privacy Analysis under the second clause of Exemption (c) is subjective in nature and requires a balancing of the public’s right to know against the relevant privacy interests at stake. Torres v. Att’y Gen., 391 Mass. 1, 9 (1984); Att’y Gen. v. Assistant Comm’r of Real Prop. Dep’t, 380 Mass. 623, 625 (1980). Therefore, determinations must be made on a case-by-case basis. There are factors to consider when assessing the weight of the privacy interest at stake: (1) whether disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities; (2) whether the materials sought contain intimate details of a highly personal nature; and (3) whether the same information is available from other sources. See People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280, 292 (2017). The types of personal information which the second clause of this exemption is designed to protect includes: marital status, paternity, substance abuse, government assistance, family disputes and reputation. Id. at 292 n.13.; see also Doe v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 415, 427 (1988) (holding that a motor vehicle licensee has a privacy interest in disclosure of his social security number). This clause requires a balancing test which provides that where the public interest in obtaining the requested information substantially outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy, the private interest in preventing disclosure must yield. PETA, 477 Mass. at 291. The public has a recognized interest in knowing whether public servants are carrying out their duties in a law-abiding and efficient manner. Id. at 292. In its February 27, 2026 response, the Office stated, “[t]his Office intends to release a redacted version of the report to Ms. Valentino once the case is closed. Because she is not next of kin, any portions of the report that would constitute an unwarranted invasion of the decedent’s personal privacy will be redacted per G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26(c).” Based on the Office’s response, it is unclear how disclosure of the requested records would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities and whether the materials sought contain intimate details of a highly personal nature. It is additionally uncertain whether the information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. As a result, I find that the Department did not meet its burden of specificity in withholding the requested records under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. 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

Kristen W. Jiang, Esq. SPR26/0980 Page 4 April 1, 2026 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 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

Kristen W. Jiang, Esq. SPR26/0980 Page 5 April 1, 2026 known to the requestor; and information voluntarily provided by an individual or entity to aid in the investigation. In its response, the Office states, As of right now, our case management system states that this investigation is still ongoing. As such, I am denying your request on the basis of the “investigatory” exemption pursuant to G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26(f). If we are able to reach the trooper assigned to the case (who, as I stated, is out on leave) and if she confirms that the investigation is closed (contrary to what I am seeing in our system), then I will release the records in our file with appropriate redaction (in light of the fact that you are not next of kin). Although the Office reiterates that the investigation is ongoing, it remains unclear how the records, in their entirety, can be withheld under Exemption (f). It is additionally unclear from the Office’s response whether the records contain confidential investigative techniques that would be prejudicial to the ongoing investigation if disclosed. The Office also did not demonstrate how disclosure of any segregable 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). Reinstein, 378 Mass. 289-290 (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 Office must clarify. Conclusion Accordingly, the Office is ordered to provide Mr. Valentino with a response to her 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 appeal the substantive nature of the Office’s response within 90 days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Gianna Valentino