Rice, Jordan v. Department of Correction (SPR 20261219)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 10, 2026 SPR26/1219 Vicki Pineda Legal Support Coordinator Massachusetts Department of Correction 50 Maple Street Milford, MA 01757 Dear Ms. Pineda: I have received the petition of Jordan M. Rice appealing the response of the Department of Correction (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On October 22, 2025, Mr. Rice requested the following: [1] Any and all May 12, 2025, video’s from Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center (SBCC) G-1 Unit that depicts your Administration’s sponsored hit on my life by your Prisoner Hitmen (,i.e., [an identified individual], [an identified individual] & [an identified individual]) whom punched, kicked & stabbed me in reprisal of [an identified lawsuit] which is why five C/O’s just watched[;] [2] Any and all May 12, 2025, C/O’s body cam video’s depicting your Administration’s sponsored hit on my life by your said Prisoner Hitmen whom punched, kicked & stabbed me at SBCC in reprisal of my said Lawsuit as five C/O’s justed [sic] watched[.] Previous Appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR25/3800 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 5, 2026) and SPR26/0312 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 5, 2026). In my February 5th determination, I ordered the Department to clarify its claims to withhold the responsive records under the Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) Act, as it operates through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. The Department responded on March 6, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Rice petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1219, was opened as a result. 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

Vicki Pineda SPR26/1219 Page 2 April 10, 2026 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. Status of the Requestor; Reason for the Request Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Mr. Rice’s interest in obtaining the records shall have no bearing on the public status of the responsive records. The Department’s March 6th Response In its March 6, 2026 response, the Department continued to cite the CORI Act as it operates through Exemption (a), as well as Exemption (b) of the Public Records Law, to withhold the responsive records. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Rice argued: [The Department] has routinely released SBCC videos to the media… Now [the Department] uses this same bogus blanket exemption claim to conceal from the Public… Furthermore, I have a unique right of access to the videos…

Vicki Pineda SPR26/1219 Page 3 April 10, 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

Vicki Pineda SPR26/1219 Page 4 April 10, 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 response to your appeal of our denial for video footage of the G1 unit on May 12, 2025 based on Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI), please be advised that video surveillance recordings are not public records… [S]urveillance videos depicting activity housing units portray images of incarcerated individuals housed at the facilities, which is prohibited from dissemination under G. L. c. 4, § 7 (26)(a) (documents exempted specifically or by necessary implication from disclosure by statute; i.e., the CORI statute and 103 CMR 153. Also, 103 CMR 157.10(3), which governs access to evaluative information by third parties, would apply to any video. These videos depict the faces of incarcerated individuals inside of a state prison, thereby, making their identities ascertainable. G. L. c. 6, § 167, defines CORI as “records and data in any communicable form compiled by a Massachusetts criminal justice agency which concern an identifiable individual and relate to... incarceration, rehabilitation, or release.” Thus, the video in question is CORI, as defined by G. L. c. 6, § 172. Exemption (b) Exemption (b) permits the withholding of records that are: related solely to internal personnel rules and practices of the government unit, provided however, that such records shall be withheld only to the extent that proper performance of necessary governmental functions requires such withholding G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(b). There are no authoritative Massachusetts decisions interpreting Exemption (b). The general purpose of the cognate federal exemption is to relieve agencies of the burden of assembling and maintaining for public inspection materials in which the public cannot reasonably be expected to have an interest. See Dep’t of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 362-70 (1976) (interpreting the federal Freedom of Information Act, which provides an exemption for records which are “related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency”); see also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Ret. Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 432 (1983) (Massachusetts Public Records Law modeled on federal Freedom of Information Act).

Vicki Pineda SPR26/1219 Page 5 April 10, 2026 The courts have interpreted the federal exemption to allow withholding of materials that, if released, could cause agency rules or regulations to be circumvented. See Fiumara v. Higgins, 572 F. Supp. 1093, 1102 (1983) (internal codes are exempt where disclosure may enable outsiders to circumvent agency functions). The analysis employed by the federal courts requires a two-pronged test. Material is exempt if it is predominantly used internally and if disclosed would significantly risk circumvention of agency regulations and statutes. See Marrera v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 622 F. Supp. 51, 55 (D.D.C. 1985) (Bureau of Prisons access and identity codes were properly withheld as materials in which the public would have no legitimate interest or which would compromise security if disclosed). Under Exemption (b), the Department stated: Massachusetts General Laws c. 4, § 7 (26) (b) exempts records “related solely to internal personnel rules and practices of the governments unit, provided however, that such records shall be withheld only to the extent that the proper performance of necessary governmental function require withholding.” Video taken within a correctional facility raises serious security concerns as such videos contain images of sensitive security measures such as camera angles or blind spots. This information, if released, could be used to undermine the safety and security of the facilities, risking the safety of incarcerated individuals and staff, as well as the public at large. Additionally, release of the video may reveal the particular angle of the camera or disclose the location of a hidden surveillance camera. Although incarcerated individuals may be aware that there are surveillance cameras at Souza Baranowski Correctional Center (SBCC), a maximum-security facility, they may not be aware of all of the locations of all of the surveillance cameras. Release of the videos may disclose those locations, thereby hindering the Department of Correction’s ability to monitor SBCC in the future. Based on the Department’s response, I find that the Department has met its burden to show how disclosing any portions of the responsive videos would depict “internal personnel rules and practices,” such as sensitive security measures related to video monitoring of the facility, and the “proper performance of necessary governmental functions,” such as maintaining a secure penal institution, requires such withholding. Therefore, I find the Department has met its burden to withhold the responsive video records under Exemption (b). Where the Department has met its burden to withhold the responsive records under Exemption (b), I decline to opine on the applicability of Exemption (a) and the CORI Act to the responsive records. Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Rice is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. See G. L. c. 66, §

Vicki Pineda SPR26/1219 Page 6 April 10, 2026 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jordan M. Rice Kate Silvia