Brandon Stokes v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20251335)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 16, 2025 SPR25/1330; SPR25/1331; SPR25/1335; SPR25/1336 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 petitions of Brandon Stokes, of 7NEWS WHDH Boston, appealing the response of the Boston Police Department (Department) to four requests for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). SPR25/1330 On April 17, 2025, Mr. Stokes requested “… bodycam video of Boston Police shooting at a vicious dog on Boylston Street around 9:30am on 4/17/25.” The Department assigned this request reference number B001105-041725. SPR25/1331 On April 17, 2025, Mr. Stokes requested “… bodycam video of Boston Police chasing a dog through the Common and Downtown Crossing on the morning of 4/17/25.” The Department assigned this request reference number B001106-041725. SPR25/1335 On April 17, 2025, Mr. Stokes requested “… bodycam video of Boston Police ending a dog’s run through the streets in the Financial District on 4/17/25.” The Department assigned this request reference number B001107-041725. 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. SPR25/1330; SPR25/1331; SPR25/1335; Page 2 SPR25/1336 May 16, 2025 SPR25/1336 On April 17, 2025, Mr. Stokes requested traffic camera video of the following subjects for the morning of April 17, 2025: [1] [A]n officer shooting at a dog on Boylston Street [2] Officers chasing the dog near the Common [3] Officers chasing the dog through Downtown Crossing [4] Officers stopping the dog in Financial[.] The Department assigned this request reference number B001108-041725. The Department responded to Mr. Stokes’ requests on April 22, 2025. Unsatisfied with the responses, Mr. Stokes petitioned this office and these appeals, SPR25/1330, SPR25/1331, SPR25/1335, and SPR25/1336, 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 22nd Responses In its April 22, 2025 responses, the Department informed Mr. Stokes that it was withholding responsive records in their entirety pursuant to Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law.

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/1330; SPR25/1331; SPR25/1335; Page 3 SPR25/1336 May 16, 2025 Current Appeals In his May 13, 2025 petitions to this office, Mr. Stokes objected to the Department’s citation of Exemption (f). Mr. Stokes contended that it was unclear how the release of the requested video footage would jeopardize any ongoing investigation. Mr. Stokes further contended that the requested records could not be withheld in their entirety. 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.” Id. at 289-90. In its April 22, 2025 responses, the Department stated: All [video footage] associated with this incident, is associated with an active and ongoing investigation being conducted by the Boston Police Firearms Discharge Investigation Team for the discharge of a firearm by a Boston Police Officer as well as a Use of Force Investigation for the use of Tasers during the incident. 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 Department’s responses, it is unclear how the responsive records, in their entirety, can be withheld under Exemption (f). It is not clear whether the responsive records contain confidential investigative techniques that would be prejudicial to the ongoing investigation if disclosed. The Department also did not demonstrate how disclosure of any

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/1330; SPR25/1331; SPR25/1335; Page 4 SPR25/1336 May 16, 2025 segregable portion of the responsive records “would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest[,]” as required under Exemption (f). See Reinstein, 378 Mass. 281, 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). The Department must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Stokes with a response to the requests, 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 pre@sec.state.ma.us. Mr. Stokes 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: Brandon Stokes