Greg Brailsford v. Taunton, City of - Police Department (SPR 20251184)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 14, 2025 SPR25/1184 John P. Joyce Lieutenant Records Access Officer Taunton Police Department 23 Summer Street Taunton, MA 02780 Dear Lieutenant Joyce: I have received the petition of Greg Brailsford, of UpriseRI.com, appealing the response of the Taunton Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 10, 2024, Mr. Brailsford requested, “[o]n Dec. 10, Taunton police responded to Morton Hospital based on a report of a student body who had been removed from his school bus. Police responded between 7:30a-8:30a. We are seeking a digital copy of the body camera footage from all officers who responded.” Prior Appeals This request was the subject of prior appeals. See SPR24/3379 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 2, 2025); SPR25/0053 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 21, 2025 and March 7, 2025) and SPR25/0872 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (April 14, 2025). In my April 14th determination, based on the Department’s responses and my previous in camera review, I found that the Department had met its burden under Exemption (c) to redact the images and information that would identify the person “experiencing a medical/mental health episode,” but that the Department had not met its burden to redact the images of other individuals. Subsequently, the Department responded on April 26, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Brailsford petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/1184, 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 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

John P. Joyce SPR25/1184 Page 2 May 14, 2025 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 April 26th Response In its April 26, 2025 response, the Department provided responsive body worn camera video. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Brailsford argues the following: We are in receipt of the Taunton PD’s response to the Records Supervisor’s order. While the visual redactions have been removed, the audio is still substantially missing from a large portion of the recordings. The determination letter includes this statement from your office, under the description of my appeal: “Mr. Brailsford is advised that portions of the records described in his appeal petition do not contain audio recordings.” Am I to understand that [the Supervisor’s] office, having viewed the recordings, is confirming that TPD actually turned off/muted recording (i.e. the audio does not exist in the original recordings) during these portions of the video and did not redact it? In his earlier March 25, 2025 appeal petition, Mr. Brailsford specifically argued the following: The department has selectively muted nearly all substantive audio portions of the footage, specifically: - A 24-minute segment where officers interact with the minor - Conversations where a school representative explains their version of the incident - Virtually all officer-civilian interactions central to our request

John P. Joyce SPR25/1184 Page 3 May 14, 2025 Notably, in one 24 minute long video, the department selectively preserved audio only when officers provided Dunkin’ Donuts gift cards to the minor and his mother - portraying officers in a positive light while systematically removing all audio that might support our concerns about officer conduct. This selective redaction directly undermines the core purpose of the Public Records Law: transparency and accountability in government operations. In Massachusetts, audio components of body camera footage are presumptively public absent a specific statutory exemption. The department has failed to cite any applicable exemption that would justify this wholesale muting of audio, particularly in a public setting like a hospital where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in common areas. Records in Existence 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). Further, 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 G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). As noted in the April 14th determination letter, and based upon in camera review, portions of the records described in Mr. Brailsford’s appeal petition do not contain audio recordings. Further, in a telephone conversation with this office on April 2, 2025, the Department confirmed that portions of the responsive body worn camera video, including the periods described in Mr. Brailsford’s appeal petition, did not include audio recordings. Where the records do not contain the additional audio content sought by Mr. Brailsford, and the Department has no duty to create records, I find that the Department has met its burden in responding to this request under the Public Records Law. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Brailsford 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. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies).

John P. Joyce SPR25/1184 Page 4 May 14, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Greg Brailsford