Brandon Stokes v. Department of State Police (SPR 20251851)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 10, 2025 SPR25/1849; SPR25/1850; SPR25/1851 Allison Mondello Public Records Manager Massachusetts Department of State Police 470 Worcester Road Framingham, MA 01702 Dear Ms. Mondello: I have received the petition of Brandon Stokes, of 7NEWS WHDH Boston, appealing the response of the Massachusetts Department of State Police (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On June 5, 2025, Mr. Stokes requested the following records: SPR25/1849 MSP dashcam video from the cruiser (#1039) involved in this incident on 6/4/25: I‐495 Cruiser Crash 4 June 2025[.] SPR25/1850 MSP bodycam video from the trooper who was driving the cruiser involved in this incident on 6/4/25: I-495 Cruiser Crash 4 June 2025[.] SPR25/1851 MSP bodycam video from troopers who responded to the scene of this incident on 6/4/25: I‐495 Cruiser Crash 4 June 2025[.] The Department responded on June 23, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Stokes petitioned this office and the following appeals, SPR25/1849, SPR25/1850, and SPR25/1851 were 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

Allison Mondello SPR25/1849; SPR25/1850; SPR25/1851 Page 2 July 10, 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. Current appeal In his appeal, Mr. Stokes asserts, “[t]he public has an increased interest in seeing how public officials carried out their duties. That increased interest encourages disclosure of the requested records. MSP has not explained how releasing the records would prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest.” The Department’s June 23rd Response In its June 23,, 2025 response the Department cited Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested records. 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

Allison Mondello SPR25/1849; SPR25/1850; SPR25/1851 Page 3 July 10, 2025 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. 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. To properly claim that Exemption (f) applies, a custodian must demonstrate that the disclosure of the records would have a prejudicial effect on its investigative efforts. This can be accomplished by describing how the records fall into one of three categories. These are the three categories that justify withholding records under Exemption (f):  The records reflect an ongoing investigation, such that any information relating to an ongoing investigation that could potentially alert suspects or targets to the activities of investigative officials;  The records reflect internal techniques, procedures, or sources, such that their disclosure would prejudice not only ongoing, but future law enforcement efforts; or  Disclosure of records would cause a chilling effect, because the exemption allows investigative officials to provide an assurance of confidentiality to individuals so that they will speak openly about matters under investigation. Such records in this third category include: any details in statements that directly or indirectly identify a private citizen who volunteers as a witness; an entire statement if the identity of witnesses is known to the requestor; and information voluntarily provided by an individual or entity to aid in the investigation. In its response, the Department argues the following under Exemption (f) for all appeals: SPR has consistently determined that the public interest in preserving investigative integrity outweighs the public’s right to access. See, e.g., SPR20/2185 (SPR upheld application of exemption prohibiting the premature disclosure of records relating to on-going criminal investigation/prosecution); SPR21/2423 (SPR upheld application of exemption prohibiting the public

Allison Mondello SPR25/1849; SPR25/1850; SPR25/1851 Page 4 July 10, 2025 disclosure of IA investigation given pendency of criminal prosecution); SPR 12/176 (“Disclosure of investigatory materials related to an ongoing investigation prior to the conclusion could harm ongoing investigation efforts”); SPR14/110 (“Whereas the record subject to this request concerns an active and ongoing investigation, I find that the Department is acting within its discretion in withholding the requested record from disclosure pursuant to Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law”). Based on the Department’s response, 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. Further, the Department did identify the records in its possession that are responsive to the request. To deny access to a record or portion of a record under the Public Records Law, a records access officer must identify the record, categories of records, or portions of the record it intends to withhold. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3)(c)(4). The Department must clarify these matters. 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 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 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