Valentino, Gianna v. Department of State Police (SPR 20261419)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 29, 2026 SPR26/1419 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 Gianna Valentino appealing the response of the Massachusetts 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 “any audio and or body camera regarding the suspicious unwitnessed death of [an identified individual.]” Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR26/0955 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 27, 2026). In my March 27th determination, I ordered the Department to clarify its claims under Exemption (f) for withholding responsive records. Subsequently, the Department responded on April 16, 2026. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Valentino petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/1419, 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 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 SPR26/1419 Page 2 April 29, 2026 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 April 16th Response In its previous March 13, 2026 response, the Department “identified the following responsive records: Case 2025-106-869” and indicated it was withholding the responsive records pursuant to Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f). In its April 16, 2026 response, the Department indicated that it did possess body camera footage responsive to Ms. Valentino’s request and further advised the following: Based upon the information provided and upon further review, the Massachusetts State Police has conducted a diligent search of its records and is unable to locate any responsive Body-Worn Camera Video. If additional information becomes available to you indicating Department of State Police involvement with Body- Worn Camera Video, you may submit a new request. Current Appeal In her April 16, 2026 appeal to this office, Ms. Valentino objects to the Department’s response and states, “[t]he . . . [Department] . . . stated they did not have any body camera footage[.] However, I request requested [sic] all audio[.]” She further explains, “[the Department] didn’t respond to the audio portion [of the request]. Obviously any audio and all audio that’s recorded related to the incident . . . is assumed.” Upon review, it is my understanding that Ms. Valentino does not take issue with the portion of the Department’s response in which it indicates that it does not possess responsive body camera footage. Records in Existence; Possession, Custody, or Control Please be advised that 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). Under the Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). However, in accordance with the Public Records Law, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5).

Allison Mondello SPR26/1419 Page 3 April 29, 2026 Based on the Department’s response, and in conjunction with Ms. Valentino’s appeal, it is unclear whether the Department possesses additional records responsive to the request. Specifically, it is unclear if the Department possesses records responsive to “any audio . . . regarding the suspicious unwitnessed death of [an identified individual.]” If the Department does possess responsive audio records, it must either provide the records, or cite an exemption to the Public Records Law, and explain with specificity how such an exemption applies to withhold or redact the audio 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”). The Department must clarify this matter. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. 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 Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Gianna Valentino