Bay State Body Cam v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20251654)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 24, 2025 SPR25/1654 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 response of the Boston 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 April 13, 2025, the requestor sought: …specific records related to the March 10, 2025 arrest of [an identified individual], 19, of Chelsea, MA, following a subject stop at Putnam Square Park in East Boston, as outlined in the Boston Police Department’s public release titled “Officers Recover Firearm and Knives During Stop in East Boston.” …[W]e are requesting the following: Body-worn camera footage from the primary officer(s) involved, beginning shortly before first contact with the suspect and continuing through to the moment the suspect is placed into the police vehicle. The booking photo of [an identified individual], the individual arrested in connection with this incident… The requestor stated further, “[w]e acknowledge that two juvenile individuals were also involved in this incident. We understand that juvenile records are subject to confidentiality protections under Massachusetts law. We request that any responsive records be provided with appropriate redactions to protect the juveniles’ identities, as required by law…” The Department responded on April 17, 2025, assigning the request reference number R001922-041325. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, the requestor petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1654, was opened as a result. 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. SPR25/1654 Page 2 June 24, 2025 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 17th Response In its April 17, 2025 response, the Department cited Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold the responsive records. Current Appeal In its appeal petition, the requestor argues the Department’s response is deficient for the following reasons: [1] Improper Use of Investigatory Exemption… [2] Segregability Requirement Ignored… [3] Body-Worn Camera Footage and Booking Photos Are Routinely Public… [4] Procedural Deficiencies… 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).

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/1654 Page 3 June 24, 2025 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, 378 Mass. at 290 n.18. 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. The Supreme Judicial Court has stated that Exemption (f) aims at “the avoidance of premature disclosure of the Commonwealth’s case prior to trial, the prevention of the disclosure of confidential investigative techniques, procedures, or sources of information, the encouragement of individual citizens to come forward and speak freely with police concerning matters under investigation, and the creation of initiative that police officers might be completely candid in recording their observations, hypotheses and interim conclusions.” Bougas, 371 Mass. at 62; cited with approval in Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289. Confidential investigative techniques may also be withheld indefinitely if disclosure is deemed to be prejudicial to future law enforcement activities. Bougas, 371 Mass. at 62. Under Exemption (f), the Department stated, “[a]ll records associated with this incident and investigation, 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.” Although the Department states that the records relate to an active and ongoing investigation, it is unclear how the records may be withheld in their entirety under Exemption (f). See Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (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 did not provide any supporting information to demonstrate how disclosure of any 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). It is also unclear how the records in their entirety contain confidential investigative techniques that would be prejudicial to an ongoing investigation if disclosed. The Department must clarify these matters. 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 (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

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/1654 Page 4 June 24, 2025 pre@sec.state.ma.us. The requestor may 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: Bay State Body Cam