Bay State Body Cam v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20251287)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 21, 2025 SPR25/1287; SPR25/1290 Christine O’Donnell, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel Office of the Legal Advisor Boston Police Department 1 City Hall Square Boston, MA 02201 Dear Attorney O’Donnell: I have received the petition of Bay State Body Cam (requestor) appealing the responses of the Boston Police Department (Department) to two requests for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). SPR25/1287 On March 25, 2025, the requestor sought: [S]pecific records related to the January 3, 2024 incident involving the arrest of a 15-year-old in possession of a firearm in the Back Bay, as outlined in the Boston Police Department’s public release … Body-worn camera footage from the primary officer involved, beginning shortly before first contact with the suspect and continuing through to the moment the suspect is placed into the vehicle. This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR25/1050 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (April 17, 2025). In my April 17th determination, I found that the Department had provided the requestor with a response on April 16, 2025. SPR25/1290 On April 13, 2025, the requestor sought: [S]pecific records related to the October 25, 2023 armed robbery incident in the Robin Hood Street area of Roxbury and the subsequent arrests made on January 18, 2024, … Body-worn camera footage from the primary officer(s) involved, 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

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/1287; SPR25/1290 Page 2 May 21, 2025 beginning shortly before first contact with each suspect and continuing through to the moment each suspect is placed into the police vehicle. The booking photos of [two identified individuals] arrested in connection with this incident. The Department responded on April 16, 2025. Unsatisfied with the responses, the requestor petitioned this office and these appeals, SPR25/1287 and SPR25/1290, were 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 April 16th Responses In its April 16, 2025 responses, the Department informed the requestor that it was withholding responsive records pursuant to Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. Current Appeals In the May 7, 2025 petition to this office, the requestor contended that the requested records were not exempt from disclosure under Exemption (a), and that the statutes cited by the Department did not apply to the requested records. Exemption (a) Exemption (a), known as the statutory exemption, permits the withholding of records that are:

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/1287; SPR25/1290 Page 3 May 21, 2025 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, 54 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-46 (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. Care and Protection Proceedings In its April 16th responses, the Department relied upon G. L. c. 119, §§ 38, 60A, and 65, which provide in pertinent part: All hearings under sections 1 to 38A, inclusive, except those related to court orders to not resuscitate or to withdraw life-sustaining medical treatment for children in the custody of the department under a care and protection order, shall be closed to the general public. It shall be unlawful to publish the names of persons before the court in any closed hearing. G. L. c. 119, § 38. The records of a youthful offender proceeding conducted pursuant to an indictment shall be open to public inspection in the same manner and to the same extent as adult criminal court records. All other records of the court in cases of delinquency arising under sections fifty-two to fifty-nine, inclusive, shall be withheld from public inspection except with the consent of a justice of such court; provided, however, that such records shall be open, at all reasonable times, to inspection by the child proceeded against, his parents, guardian or attorney … G. L. c. 119, § 60A.

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/1287; SPR25/1290 Page 4 May 21, 2025 Courts shall designate suitable times for the hearing of cases of children under 18 years of age, which shall be called the juvenile session, for which a separate docket and record shall be kept. Said session shall be separate from that for the trial of criminal cases, shall not, except as otherwise expressly provided, be held in conjunction with other business of the court, and shall be held in rooms not used for criminal trials; and in places where no separate juvenile courtroom is provided, hearings, so far as possible, shall be held in chambers. The court shall exclude the general public from juvenile sessions admitting only such persons as may have a direct interest in the case, except in cases where the commonwealth has proceeded by indictment. A complaint under section sixty-three may be heard in such juvenile session. G. L. c. 119, § 60A. In its responses, the Department stated: The Care and Protection statutes in the General Laws govern proceedings involving children and also prohibit information for persons under the age of 18 from public disclosure. See G.L. c. 119 et al. Specifically, section 38 … Because this statute prohibits the publication of names and the closure of most hearings to the public for persons under the age of 18, it is clear that the intent is to protect the identities of this vulnerable population. Similarly, body camera footage of juveniles requires the same protection that is required under c. 119. Id. Therefore, body camera footage of juveniles is exempt under statutory Exemption A and is prevented from public disclosure. Further, section 60A and 65 of c. 119 prohibit certain types of juvenile records from public disclosure … The language of this statute contemplates that the identity of juveniles be protected from public inspection except in very limited circumstances and that juvenile records should only be available to certain individuals and not the public at large. This is significant because it shows that the identity of the juveniles is not subject to public disclosure. Section 65 establishes requirements for juvenile sessions and the presence of minors and requires courts to keep separate dockets and records for such sessions. G.L. c. 119, ss. 65. This is another example where proceedings and information involving persons under 18 is not open to the public. Based on the Department’s responses, it is unclear how the cited statutes specifically or by necessary implication prohibit the disclosure of the requested records. The Department must clarify this matter.

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/1287; SPR25/1290 Page 5 May 21, 2025 Daily Police Logs In its April 16th responses, the Department relied upon G. L. c. 41, § 98F, which provides in pertinent part: Each police department and each college or university to which officers have been appointed pursuant to section 63 of chapter 22C shall make, keep and maintain a daily log, written in a form that can be easily understood, recording, in chronological order, all responses to valid complaints received, crimes reported, the names, addresses of persons arrested and the charges against such persons arrested. All entries in said daily logs shall, unless otherwise provided in law, be public records available without charge to the public during regular business hours and at all other reasonable times; provided, however, that the following entries shall be kept in a separate log and shall not be a public record nor shall such entry be disclosed to the public, or any individual not specified in section 97D: … (iv) any entry concerning the arrest of a person who has not yet reached 18 years of age. G. L. c. 41, § 98F. In its responses, the Department stated: While the record you are seeking is not an entry in the daily police log and does not relate to an arrest of a juvenile, the record you are seeking involves a juvenile; therefore, by necessary implication, this record is not a public record and is exempt. Based on the Department’s responses, it is unclear how the requested records are the type contemplated by G. L. c. 41, § 98F. Specifically, it is unclear how body worn camera footage and booking photographs constitute an entry in a daily log concerning the arrest of a person who has not yet reached 18 years of age. Consequently, the Department has not met its burden to withhold the requested records, in their entirety, under G. L. c. 41, § 98F. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 n.18 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). The Department must clarify this matter. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide the requestor with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten 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

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/1287; SPR25/1290 Page 6 May 21, 2025 pre@sec.state.ma.us. The requestor may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Bay State Body Cam John T. Boyle