Valentino, Gianna v. Department of State Police (SPR 20261443)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 27, 2026 SPR26/1443 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 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. Previous Appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals See SPR26/1100 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 27, 2026) and SPR26/1121 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (April 7, 2026). In my April 7th determination, I ordered the Department to clarify its claims to withhold the responsive record(s) under Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. The Department responded on April 16, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. Valentino petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1443, 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 SPR26/1443 Page 2 April 27, 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. The Department’s April 16th Response In its April 16, 2026 response, the Department identified the following responsive records in its possession: - Case File; 2025-106-869 - Homicide/Death Report; 2025-106-869 - Autopsy Result Report; 2025-106-869/1 - Wells Death Certificate In addition, the Department cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold the responsive records entirely and stated, “[b]e advised that, upon further review, research, and information provided to this office after the Department’s original March 27, 2026, response, the requested records are no longer the subject of an active or ongoing investigation.” Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Valentino argued, “the Mass state police assertion that [the records are] exempt is frivolous… An attempt to stonewall the requestor, and an outrageous abuse of the application of exemptions.” In a subsequent email to this office on April 17, 2026, Ms. Valentino stated, “I need to add to this appeal that my original request asked for the entire file not just the incident report… [T]hey did not even address my request for the entire file.” 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.

Allison Mondello SPR26/1443 Page 3 April 27, 2026 G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). First Clause – Medical Medical information that is of a personal nature and relates to a specifically named individual may be exempt from disclosure. Brogan v. Sch. Comm. of Westport, 401 Mass. 306, 308 (1987); Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Ret. Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 438 (1983). Generally, medical information is sufficiently personal to warrant exemption. Globe Newspaper Co., 338 Mass. at 432-34. There is a strong public policy in Massachusetts that favors confidentiality as to medical data about a person’s body. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Chief Med. Exam’r, 404 Mass. 132, 135 (1987). 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. 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: In regard to your request for Homicide/Death Report 2025-106-869, the Department takes the position that the requested record is not subject to public disclosure pursuant to General Laws c. 4, §7, cl. 26 (c)… In this instance, the Department asserts that disclosing Homicide/Death Report 2025-106-869 would

Allison Mondello SPR26/1443 Page 4 April 27, 2026 reveal intimate details of a highly personal nature. Specifically, by providing insight as to the decedent’s medical conditions and/or substance abuse issues. Additionally, an identifiable person’s license number, coupled with their date of birth and home or personal address, is intimate details of a highly personal nature used for applying for credits cards, opening up a personal bank account, applying for lines of credit, for employment, and for other private matters. Therefore, in this instance, the Department deems the responsive record, Homicide/Death Report 2025-106-869, sought to implicate matters of intimate detail of a highly personal and private nature, which outweighs any public interest. Further, the Department asserts that any non-exempt portions of Homicide/Death Report 2025-106-869 are inextricably intertwined with exempt portions and, given the amount of exempt information contained in the records they “…will be so heavily redacted…that the records would be rendered functionally useless to [any requestor].” See Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. United States Dep't of the Air Force, 566 F.2d 242, 260 (D.C. Cir. 1977)… In regard to Autopsy Result Report 2025-106-869/1 and/or Wells Death Certificate, the record(s) contain(s) information related to OCME toxicology and/or post-mortem testing. Please note that OCME information and/or records are withheld pursuant to M.G.L. c. 4, § 7 (26)(a) & (c) and M.G.L. c. 38, §2. To the extent that the responsive records contain medical information of a specifically identified individual, I find that the Department may properly withhold such portions under Exemption (c). Further, although portions of the records may fall within the privacy clause of Exemption (c), the Department has not sufficiently established how the responsive records may be withheld in their entirety. Here, the Department has not shown that the records, in their entirety, contain intimate details of a highly personal nature, nor that disclosure thereof would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. Further, it is unclear whether 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. 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, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). The Department must clarify these matters. Additional Records Further, based on its response, it is unclear whether the Department possesses any additional records responsive to the request other than those it has identified. Specifically, the Department must clarify whether it possesses any additional records Ms. Valentino seeks regarding the “entire file” The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records

Allison Mondello SPR26/1443 Page 5 April 27, 2026 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 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 (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