Brandon Stokes v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20251620)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 23, 2025 SPR25/1618; SPR25/1620 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 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). SPR25/1618 On May 29, 2025, Mr. Stokes requested “BPD bodycam video of a man attacking an officer, grabbing the officer’s gun, and shooting himself in the foot outside an MGH office building on Tuesday 5/27/25.” The Department responded on June 7, 2025, and assigned reference number B001490-052925 to this request. SPR25/1620 On May 29, Mr. Stokes requested “traffic camera video of a man attacking an officer, grabbing the officer’s gun, and shooting himself in the foot outside an MGH office building on Tuesday 5/27/25.” The Department responded on June 7, 2025, and assigned reference number B001491-052925 to this request. Unsatisfied with the Department’s responses, Mr. Stokes petitioned this office, and these appeals, SPR25/1618 and SPR25/1620, 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 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 SPR25/1618; SPR25/1620 Page 2 June 23, 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. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Stokes argues that “[w]hile the incident may be under investigation, the investigatory exemption (f) still allows for the release of records that are in the public interest. The public has an increased interest in seeing how public officials, in this case police officer(s), carried out their public duties.” The Department’s June 7th Responses In each of its June 7, 2025 responses, the Department cites Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law for withholding responsive “BWC video” and “traffic camera video.” 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

Grace Jung SPR25/1618; SPR25/1620 Page 3 June 23, 2025 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 its June 7th responses, the Department argues the following under Exemption (f): All records . . . associated with [the] incident, are associated with an active and ongoing investigation. 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 constitute investigatory materials. Further, the Department 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 Department 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). It is additionally uncertain how the records can be withheld in their entirety. 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). The Department must explain whether segregable portions can be provided. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department 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 Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Brandon Stokes