Brandon Stokes v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20251333)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 27, 2025 SPR25/1332; SPR25/1333 Grace Jung Director of Public Records City of Boston 1 City Hall Square, Room 615 Boston, MA 02201 Dear Ms. Jung: I have received the petitions of Brandon Stokes, of 7News WHDH Boston, appealing the responses of the City of Boston (City) to two requests for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). SPR25/1332 On April 2, 2025, Mr. Stokes requested “video from city traffic cameras showing a box truck crash at the corner of Kneeland Street and Harrison Ave around 12:45pm on 4/1/25.” The City responded on April 3, 2025, and assigned Reference No. B000929-040225 to this request. SPR25/1333 Also on April 2, 2025, Mr. Stokes requested “bodyworn camera video of officers responding to a box truck crash at the corner of Kneeland Street and Harrison Ave around 12:45pm on 4/1/25.” The City responded on April 3, 2025, and assigned Reference No. B000930-040225 to this request. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses to both requests, Mr. Stokes petitioned this office, and these appeals, SPR25/1332 and SPR25/1333, 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 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

Grace Jung SPR25/1332; SPR25/1333 Page 2 May 27, 2025 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 City’s April 3rd Responses In each of its April 3, 2025 responses, the City cites Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law for withholding responsive records. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f). Exemption (f) Exemption (f) permits the withholding of: investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of the public view by law enforcement or other investigatory officials the disclosure of which materials would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f). A custodian of records generally must demonstrate a prejudice to investigative efforts in order to withhold requested records. Information relating to an ongoing investigation may be withheld if disclosure could alert suspects to the activities of investigative officials. Confidential investigative techniques may also be withheld indefinitely if disclosure is deemed to be prejudicial to future law enforcement activities. Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 62 (1976). Redactions may be appropriate where they serve to preserve the anonymity of voluntary witnesses. Antell v. Att’y Gen., 52 Mass. App. Ct. 244, 248 (2001); Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 290 n.18 (1979). Exemption (f) invites a “case-by- case consideration” of whether disclosure “would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest.” See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90. In each of its April 3rd responses, the City argues the following under Exemption (f): All records associated with this incident, are associated with an active and

Grace Jung SPR25/1332; SPR25/1333 Page 3 May 27, 2025 ongoing investigation. Detectives are still locating and interviewing witnesses to this incident. Detectives are still in the process of viewing officers BWC from the scene. As such, your request is denied, as all records associated with this matter are exempt from disclosure pursuant to the investigative exemption to the public records law. G. L. c. 4, § 7 (26) (f). Disclosure of any responsive records would harm the investigative efforts of the Department. Based on the City’s response, it is unclear how the responsive records constitute investigatory materials compiled out of public view. Further, the City states that the requested records are associated with an ongoing investigation, but it does not explain the subject of the investigation nor does it describe how the requested records are part of the investigation. Also, the City did not demonstrate how disclosure of the withheld records “would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest,” as required to withhold records under Exemption (f). The City must clarify these matters. Additionally, it is unclear from the City’s response which specific records the City intends to withhold. The City must identify the records, categories of records, or portions of records it intends to withhold under Exemption (f). 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 is further uncertain why the records must be withheld in their entirety. The City must explain whether the records can be redacted so that segregable portions can be provided. See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90 (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). Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Stokes 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. Mr. Stokes may further appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Grace Jung SPR25/1332; SPR25/1333 Page 4 May 27, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Brandon Stokes