Media, EWU v. Department of State Police (SPR 20261023)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 30, 2026 SPR26/1023 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 EWU Media LLC (requestor) appealing the response 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 January 13, 2026, the requestor sought the following: …all records that discuss or describe: Name (of suspect[s]): [an identified individual] Incident: Attempted stabbing of a flight attendant and attempted interference with flight crew using a dangerous weapon Date of Incident: March 5, 2023 (arrested upon landing at Boston Logan International Airport); Sentenced on Tuesday, July 29, 2025 Date of Birth (of suspect[s]): NA Location: In-flight aboard United Airlines Flight 2609, en route from Los Angeles, California to Boston, Massachusetts; arrest occurred in Boston, Suffolk County, Massachusetts, MA Address for 911: Not applicable (in-air emergency) Time of 911 Call: NA Requesting: - Evidence/Crime scene photographs - All 911 call recordings associated with the case - Police reports, including incident, narrative, and supplemental reports[.] 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 SPR26/1023 Page 2 March 30, 2026 The Department responded on March 5, 2026, assigning the request reference number P000528-011326. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, the requestor petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1023, 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. The Department’s March 5th Response In its March 5, 2026 response, the Department identified “BWCV” responsive to the request and cited the Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) Act, as it operates through Exemption (a), as well as Exemptions (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law, to withhold the responsive records from disclosure. Current Appeal In the appeal petition, the requestor argued: [1] The CORI exemption does not apply… [2] The Department violated its duty to segregate and release non-exempt portions… [3] The privacy exemption does not outweigh the public interest… [4] Exemption (f) requires redaction, not wholesale denial… [5] The 911 and emergency communications must be separately analyzed and produced… [6] [There is no] itemized explanation of all withheld records…

Allison Mondello SPR26/1023 Page 3 March 30, 2026 Exemption (a) Exemption (a), known as the statutory exemption, permits the withholding of records that are: specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). A governmental entity may use the statutory exemption as a basis for withholding requested materials where the language of the exempting statute relied upon expressly or necessarily implies that the public’s right to inspect records under the Public Records Law is restricted. See Att’y Gen. v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 154 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-546 (1977). This exemption creates two categories of exempt records. The first category includes records that are specifically exempt from disclosure by statute. Such statutes expressly state that such a record either “shall not be a public record,” “shall be kept confidential” or “shall not be subject to the disclosure provision of the Public Records Law.” The second category under the exemption includes records deemed exempt under statute by necessary implication. Such statutes expressly limit the dissemination of particular records to a defined group of individuals or entities. A statute is not a basis for exemption if it merely lists individuals or entities to whom the records are to be provided; the statute must expressly limit access to the listed individuals or entities. Criminal Offender Record Information The current definition of CORI is as follows: “Criminal offender record information,” records and data in any communicable form compiled by a Massachusetts criminal justice agency which concern an identifiable individual and relate to the nature or disposition of a criminal charge, an arrest, a pre-trial proceeding, other judicial proceedings, previous hearings conducted pursuant to section 58A of chapter 276 where the defendant was detained prior to trial or released with conditions under subsection (2) of section 58A of chapter 276, sentencing, incarceration, rehabilitation, or release. Such information shall be restricted to information recorded in criminal proceedings that are not dismissed before arraignment. Criminal offender record information shall not include evaluative information, statistical and analytical reports and files in which individuals are not directly or indirectly identifiable, or intelligence information. Criminal offender record information shall be limited to information concerning persons who have attained the age of 18 and shall not include any information concerning criminal offenses or acts of delinquency committed by any person before he attained the age of 18; provided, however, that if a person

Allison Mondello SPR26/1023 Page 4 March 30, 2026 under the age of 18 was adjudicated as an adult in superior court or adjudicated as an adult after transfer of a case from a juvenile session to another trial court department, information relating to such criminal offense shall be criminal offender record information. Criminal offender record information shall not include information concerning any offenses which are not punishable by incarceration. G. L. c. 6, § 167. Under Exemption (a), the Department stated: In this instance, the record(s) sought fall within this exemption since releasing the requested information would violate M.G.L. c. 6, § 172, the Criminal Offender Record Information (“CORI”) statute.… [T]he records requested is CORI, as the subject of the records has been arraigned in a criminal proceeding, and the records relate to the nature of a criminal charge or arrest, that is it displays the circumstances surrounding the subjects arrest and/or criminal charge. Therefore, the records you seek are exempt from disclosure pursuant to M.G.L. c. 4, §7, cl. 26 (a). Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear how the withheld records fall within the definition of CORI. Specifically, the Department has not demonstrated how all of the records constitute “information recorded in criminal proceedings that are not dismissed before arraignment.” See G. L. c. 6, § 167. Consequently, the Department has not met its burden to withhold the responsive records in their entirety under the CORI Act as it operates through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. See Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (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). Exemption (c) Exemption (c) permits the withholding of: 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). 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.

Allison Mondello SPR26/1023 Page 5 March 30, 2026 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. This clause does not protect all data relating to specifically named individuals. Rather, 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. Under Exemption (c), the Department stated: Here, your request seeks records that concern the alleged misconduct of a private person and as such, there is little to offset the risk of adverse collateral consequences arising from the disclosure of these records. Therefore, the Department denies your request pursuant to M.G.L. c. 4, §7, cl. 26 (c), as a matter of personal privacy relying upon the reasoning in the Boston Globe Media Partners case. Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear how the Department may withhold the responsive records in their entirety under the privacy clause of Exemption (c). The Department has not sufficiently demonstrated how the records contain intimate details of a highly personal that would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. Further, it is uncertain whether any of this information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. The Department must also provide additional information with respect to the balancing test which examines whether the public interest in obtaining the requested information outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy. Id. The Department must clarify these matters. Exemption (f) Exemption (f) permits the withholding of: investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of the public view by law

Allison Mondello SPR26/1023 Page 6 March 30, 2026 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. at 290 n.18. 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

Allison Mondello SPR26/1023 Page 7 March 30, 2026 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. Under Exemption (f), the Department stated, “…a large portion of the BWC footage shows witnesses and victims who were aboard the aircraft at the time of this incident. For that reason, the BWCV is not subject to public disclosure pursuant to G. L. c. 4, sec. 7, cl. 26 (f) (identification witness).” Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear how the records may be withheld in their entirety under Exemption (f). While the identifying information of victims and voluntary witnesses may be withheld, it is uncertain from the Department’s response whether the records contain confidential investigative techniques that would be prejudicial to an ongoing investigation if disclosed. The Department has also not demonstrated 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). The Department must clarify these matters Additional Records Further, based on the information provided in the appeal petition and the Department’s response, it is unclear whether the Department possesses any additional records responsive to the request, other than the withheld body worn camera footage. The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). Custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist the requestor in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). The Department must clarify this matter. 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 appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Allison Mondello SPR26/1023 Page 8 March 30, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: EWU Media LLC