Valentino, Gianna v. Department of State Police (SPR 20261121)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 7, 2026 SPR26/1121 Allison Mondello Public Records Manager Office of the Chief Legal Counsel 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 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, “. . . the incident report and the file regarding the suspicious and unwitnessed death of [an identified individual] at . . . Fairmount St. in Saugus[.]” The Department assigned reference number P002530-030626 to this request. Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR26/1100 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 27, 2026). In my March 27th determination, I ordered the Department to respond to Ms. Valentino’s request. The Department responded on March 27, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. Valentino petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1121, 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). 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 SPR26/1121 Page 2 April 7, 2026 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. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Valentino contends, “[t]he medical examiner’s office already finalized the death certificate stating he died of complications of long-term alcohol use. . . . The state police can redact any information that the law will uphold. But the generalized blanket argument that it could compromise prosecution is a lie. This is not a criminal investigation therefore the information can be released.” The Department’s March 27th Response In its March 27, 2026 response, the Department cited Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold the responsive record. 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

Allison Mondello SPR26/1121 Page 3 April 7, 2026 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 under Exemption (f), the Department asserted: After a diligent search of its records systems, the Department has identified the following responsive records: Case File; 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, cl. 26 (f) . . . .

Allison Mondello SPR26/1121 Page 4 April 7, 2026 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). Based upon the forgoing and given the pendency of the investigation, the Department denies the request. There is no date certain by which the investigation will be complete, I recommend you re-submit your request at a later time. Although the Department claims that there is an open investigation, it is unclear how the record, in its entirety, can be withheld under Exemption (f). It is additionally unclear from the Department’s response whether the record contains confidential investigative techniques. The Department also did not demonstrate how disclosure of any segregable portion of the responsive record “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 Department must clarify these matters. 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 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 Department’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Gianna Valentino