McCarter, Brian v. Department of State Police (SPR 20261239)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 13, 2026 SPR26/1239 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 Brian McCarter 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 June 20, 2025, Mr. McCarter requested records from January 1, 2023 to the present pertaining to “incidents occurring within approximately 1 mile of the Mass Ave Connector in Boston – including the area commonly referred to as the Connector, Mass and Cass, Methadone Mile, Recovery Road, Miracle Mile, or the Albany Street corridor – including intersections with Albany Street, Melnea Cass Boulevard and the I-93 ramps.” Specifically, Mr. McCarter sought: [1] All incident reports, arrest records, and field interview reports for events occurring within 1 mile of the Mass Ave Connector [including] records involving overdoses, assaults, weapons-related incidents, disorderly conduct, trespassing, and medical assistance. [2] All call-for-service logs, CAD data, or dispatch records involving response to this area [including] any classification codes or incident types where available. [3] All internal communications (including emails, memos, text messages, and messages sent through Signal, WhatsApp, iMessage, Slack, Microsoft Teams, or other messaging applications) referencing crime, overdoses, encampments, repeat hazard areas, or public safety concerns near the Connector. [4] Any communications with Boston Police, MBTA Police, MassDOT, Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH), Executive Office of Health and Human Services (EOHHS), Executive Office of Public Safety and Security (EOPSS), Department of Mental Health (DMH), Department of Public Utilities 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 SPR26/1239 Page 2 April 13, 2026 (DPU), Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD), City of Boston (including the Mayor’s Office, Boston Public Health Commission, Office of Recovery Services, and Department of Neighborhood Development), Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department, or any other state, municipal, or regional, city agency/departments concerning safety risks, public health issues, enforcement coordination, or planned operations in the area. [5] Any records relating to EMS responses, ambulance transports, or hospital coordination for incidents occurring in the area, including overdose incidents or mass casualty preparations. This includes records received from, shared with, or created in coordination with Boston EMS, private ambulance services, area hospitals, or public health agencies. [6] Any crime pattern analyses, intelligence bulletins, or internal threat or risk assessments pertaining to the Connector and adjacent locations. [7] Any reports, complaints, or internal safety alerts from troopers regarding repeat threats, unsafe conditions, or health/sanitation concerns along the Connector corridor. [8] Any communications between MSP and MassDOT or its contractors related to encampments, pedestrian hazards, debris removal, public safety issues, or cleanup efforts along the Connector. [9] Any internal communications regarding a decision not to issue a public safety bulletin, press release, or public warning despite known or ongoing danger at or near the Connector. [10] Any daily shift logs, roll-call briefings, patrol directives, or command staff situation reports that reference the Connector area or nearby encampments, drug activity, or public safety hazards. [11] Records of naloxone administrations or other life-saving medical interventions by troopers within the 1-mile zone, including supply-reorder logs or usage summaries. [12] All cruiser dash-camera, body-worn camera (if any), or radio-channel audio recordings associated with incidents in the area. If video is retained only under specific incident numbers, please identify the numbers or hash values so the footage can be requested or preserved. [13] Any after-action reports, operational plans, or “directed patrol” / “hot-spot” enforcement plans that reference the Connector corridor, including joint operations with Boston Police, MBTA Police, or MassDOT.

Allison Mondello SPR26/1239 Page 3 April 13, 2026 It is my understanding that the Department assigned the request reference number P006467-062225. Previous Appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR25/1988 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 23, 2025); SPR25/2189 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 1, 2025); and SPR26/0064 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 21, 2026). In my August 1st determination, I encouraged Mr. McCarter and the Department to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. On August 23, 2025 and September 3, 2025, Mr. McCarter clarified the scope of his request. In my January 21st determination, I ordered the Department to provide an estimated date as to when it expects to complete its review and provide the requested records. The Department responded on March 16, 2026 and April 3, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Department’s responses, Mr. McCarter petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1239, 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 16th and April 3rd Responses In its March 16, 2026 response, the Department stated: Currently the Department has located approximately 822 records that will require individual review to determine if records can be released and what redactions may need to be made if any. As such, this request will continue to take a significant amount of time to process. The current hope is to have a list by Friday, March 27 indicating what, if any, of the current records cannot be released and provide the

Allison Mondello SPR26/1239 Page 4 April 13, 2026 applicable exemptions. Afterward, the intention is to release several records at a time until all responsive records have been provided. In its first April 3, 2026 response, the Department stated, “[w]e apologize for the delay but, as we previously noted, there are over 800 documents potentially responsive to your request which must be reviewed and, when required by law, redacted. We intend to have a partial response to you today and will continue to provide responsive documents on a rolling basis.” In a second response on April 3, 2026, the Department identified a responsive record that it withheld under G. L. c. 41, § 97D and over 20 additional records that it withheld under the Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) Act, as the statute operate through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. In addition, the Department stated, “[a]dditional correspondence will be provided by Friday April 17, 2026.” Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. McCarter argued, “[t]he Department’s April 3 response… provides only a limited, partial identification of certain records while continuing to withhold records categorically and without producing any non-exempt material.” Mr. McCarter further contends that the Department has not addressed whether other categories of records exist. 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

Allison Mondello SPR26/1239 Page 5 April 13, 2026 access to the listed individuals or entities. In its response, the Department cited G. L. c. 41, § 97D, which provides in pertinent part: All reports of rape and sexual assault or attempts to commit such offenses, all reports of abuse perpetrated by family or household members, as defined in section 1 of chapter 209A, and all communications between police officers and victims of such offenses or abuse shall not be public reports and shall be maintained by the police departments in a manner that shall assure their confidentiality; provided, however, that all such reports shall be accessible at all reasonable times, upon written request, to: (i) the victim, the victim’s attorney, others specifically authorized by the victim to obtain such information, prosecutors and (ii) victim-witness advocates as defined in section 1 of chapter 258B, domestic violence victims’ counselors as defined in section 20K of chapter 233, sexual assault counselors as defined in section 20J of chapter 233... G. L. c. 41, § 97D. The Department also relies on the CORI Act to withhold responsive records, which provides as follows: 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 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

Allison Mondello SPR26/1239 Page 6 April 13, 2026 incarceration. G. L. c. 6, § 167. Additionally, G. L. c. 6, § 172(m) provides in pertinent part: Notwithstanding this section or chapter 66A, the following shall be public records: (1) police daily logs, arrest registers, or other similar records compiled chronologically; (2) chronologically maintained court records of public judicial proceedings; (3) published records of public court or administrative proceedings, and of public judicial administrative or legislative proceedings; and (4) decisions of the parole board as provided in section 130 of chapter 127. G. L. c. 6, § 172(m). Under Exemption (a), the Department stated: …please be advised that the Department denies your request for these records pursuant to M.G. L. c. 4, § 7 cl. 26(a), which exempts from public disclosure any records that are “specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute.” The record(s) responsive to your request fall within this exemption because releasing the requested information would violate M.G.L. c. 41, § 97D, the confidentiality of reports of rape, sexual assault and domestic violence statute… Accordingly, the Department denies your request… With the information provided in the request, the Department conducted a diligent search and located a responsive record which cannot be released because they constitute Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) which is exempt from public release pursuant to G. L. c. 4, § 7 cl. 26(a)… Releasing arrest reports would violate G.L. c. 6, § 172 which prohibits the dissemination of CORI information… Each report relates to both an arrest and to a criminal charge against a specifically named individual. Accordingly, they are not subject to public release. Based on the Department’s response, the Department has not sufficiently demonstrated how G. L. c. 41, § 97D applies to the responsive records that it is withholding under the statute. It is also unclear how the additional withheld records fall within the definition of CORI. Specifically, it is not clear how all the records constitute “information recorded in criminal proceedings that are not dismissed before arraignment.” See G. L. c. 6, § 167. Further, where the Department stated, “[r]eleasing arrest reports would violate G.L. c. 6, § 172 which prohibits the dissemination of CORI information,” it is unclear how portions of the records in question would not constitute the sort of “police daily logs, arrest registers, or other similar records compiled chronologically” described in G. L. c. 6, § 172(m). Please be advised that for Exemption (a) to apply, a statute must either expressly state that the withheld records are not subject to disclosure

Allison Mondello SPR26/1239 Page 7 April 13, 2026 under the Public Records Law, or limit dissemination of said information to a defined group or individuals or entities. Consequently, the Department must explain with specificity how the cited statutes and Exemption (a) apply to the withheld records. 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 should be noted that any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). 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). The Department must clarify these matters. Timeliness in Providing Records G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) provides, in pertinent part, that if the magnitude or difficulty of the request unduly burdens the other responsibilities of the agency or municipality such that the agency or municipality cannot provide records within 10 business days, the agency or municipality must inform the requestor in writing within 10 business days. With respect to the timeframe to produce responsive records, the written response shall: identify a reasonable timeframe in which the agency or municipality shall produce the public records sought; provided, that for an agency, the timeframe shall not exceed 15 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records and for a municipality the timeframe shall not exceed 25 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records; and provided further, that the requestor may voluntarily agree to a response date beyond the timeframes set forth herein. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Where Mr. McCarter’s request was submitted on June 20, 2025, and clarified on August 23, 2025 and September 3, 2025, and the Department has not provided responsive records, nor cited an exemption for withholding the outstanding records, I find the Department has not met its burden in responding to the request in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Accordingly, although the Department states that it plans to produce its next response on April 17, 2026, I find the Department must provide an estimated date as to when it expects to complete its review and provide the requested records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). To the extent possible, the Department must provide responsive records on a rolling basis. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. McCarter with a response to the request provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its

Allison Mondello SPR26/1239 Page 8 April 13, 2026 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. McCarter may 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: Brian McCarter