Brandon Stokes v. Bureau of the State House (SPR 20252354)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 26, 2025 SPR25/2354 Tammy E. Kraus Superintendent Bureau of the State House Room 1, State House Boston, MA 02133 Dear Ms. Kraus: I have received the petition of Brandon Stokes, of 7 News WHDH Boston, appealing the response of the Bureau of the State House (Bureau) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 24, 2025, Mr. Stokes requested “surveillance video from State House security cameras showing someone throwing paint on the front steps around 3:30am on 7/23/25.” The Bureau responded on August 7, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Bureau’s response, Mr. Stokes petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/2354, was 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. 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

Tammy E. Kraus SPR25/2354 Page 2 August 26, 2025 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 Bureau’s August 7th Response In its August 7, 2025 response, the Bureau cites Exemption (n) of the Public Records Law for withholding responsive records. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(n). Exemption (n) Exemption (n) applies to: records, including, but not limited to, blueprints, plans, policies, procedures and schematic drawings, which relate to internal layout and structural elements, security measures, emergency preparedness, threat or vulnerability assessments, or any other records relating to the security or safety of persons or buildings, structures, facilities, utilities, transportation, cyber security or other infrastructure located within the commonwealth, the disclosure of which, in the reasonable judgment of the record custodian, subject to review by the supervisor of public records under subsection (c) of section 10 of chapter 66, is likely to jeopardize public safety or cyber security. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(n). Exemption (n) allows for the withholding of certain records which if released would jeopardize public safety. The first prong of Exemption (n) examines “whether, and to what degree, the record sought resembles the records listed as examples in the statute;” specifically, the “inquiry is whether, and to what degree, the record is one a terrorist ‘would find useful to maximize damage.’” People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280, 289-90 (2017). The second prong of Exemption (n) examines “the factual and contextual support for the proposition that disclosure of the record is ‘likely to jeopardize public safety.’” Id. at 289-90. The PETA decision further provides that “[b]ecause the records custodian must exercise ‘reasonable judgment’ in making that determination, the primary focus on review is whether the custodian has provided sufficient factual heft for the supervisor of public records or the reviewing court to conclude that a reasonable person would agree with the custodian’s determination given the context of the particular case.” Id. PETA also provides that “[t]hese two prongs of exemption (n) must be analyzed together, because there is an inverse correlation between them. That is, the more the record sought resembles the records enumerated in exemption (n), the lower the custodian’s burden in demonstrating ‘reasonable judgment’ and vice versa.” PETA, at 290.

Tammy E. Kraus SPR25/2354 Page 3 August 26, 2025 In its August 7th response, under Exemption (n), the Bureau argues the following: We claim exemption (n) of the twenty sixth paragraph of section 7 of chapter 4 of the public records law for your request for surveillance video because the release of the security camera footage that you have requested is likely to jeopardize security at the State House, as it captures the vantage point of a security camera that monitors the perimeter security of the front lawn and any perimeter security vulnerabilities during low light timeframes. The requested record could be used for surveillance purposes to understand the layout and patrol response to an incident to the front gate. The requested video is a record that a bad actor would find useful to maximize damage, in that it could be used to exploit security measures, circumvent camera coverage, and target other access points to the building. The record would also illustrate the clarity of the camera at night in certain areas. In addition, this record would highlight internal security measures, the DCR exterior patrol, and operational security, as well as DCR’s response to a security incident at the State House. It is very reasonable to believe that the requested record could jeopardize the safety of the building. A bad actor would find these records useful in maximizing significant damage against the State House, the most prominent public building in Massachusetts and the seat of the Commonwealth’s government. Based on the Bureau’s response, it is unclear how the requested records resemble the records listed as examples in the statute. See PETA, 477 Mass. at 289. Particularly, it is not clear how the records resemble “blueprints, plans, policies, procedures and schematic drawings” that relate to security measures. It is also uncertain how the records, in their entirety, are the type that “a terrorist would find useful to maximize damage” as required under Exemption (n). Where the requested records bear a minimal resemblance to the categories listed in Exemption (n), the burden on the custodian to prove its “reasonable judgment” that disclosure is likely to jeopardize public safety is greatest. See id. at 290 (noting “inverse correlation” between the two prongs of Exemption (n) inquiry). Further, the Bureau did not provide factual heft to support the withholding of the requested records, in their entirety, pursuant to Exemption (n). Specifically, the Bureau has not sufficiently explained how disclosure of the records is likely to jeopardize public safety or cyber security. See PETA, at 289-90. It is additionally unclear how the records can be withheld in their entirety. The Bureau must explain whether the records can be redacted so that segregable portions can be provided. See Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Any nonexempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). The Bureau must clarify these matters.

Tammy E. Kraus SPR25/2354 Page 4 August 26, 2025 Conclusion Accordingly, the Bureau 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 Bureau’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Brandon Stokes