Brandon Stokes v. Bureau of the State House (SPR 20252383)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 27, 2025 SPR25/2383 Tammy Kraus Superintendent Bureau of the State House State House, Room 1 24 Beacon Street Boston, MA 02133 Dear Superintendent Kraus: I have received the petition of Brandon Stokes, of 7NEWS 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 17, 2025, Mr. Stokes requested, ...State House building surveillance video related to the arrest of [an identified individual] around 1:00 am on 7/16/25. Specifically, I’m requesting surveillance video showing the following: [1] [an identified individual’s] GMC Yukon crashing into a parked white pickup truck in the area of 67 Hancock Street on the back side of the State House building[;] [2] [an identified individual] stopping and getting out of his GMC Yukon at the intersection of Joy & Beacon Streets before making a left turn on Beacon Street[;] [3] Boston Police interaction with, and ultimate arrest of, [an identified individual] at the corner of Beacon Street & Bowdoin Street[.] The Bureau provided a response on August 1, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Stokes petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2383, 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 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 Kraus SPR25/2383 Page 2 August 27, 2025 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 Bureau’s August 1st Response In its August 1, 2025 response, the Bureau cited Exemption (n) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested records in their entirety. Current appeal In his appeal, Mr. Stokes contends: [t]he State House is accessible to the public, as are the sidewalks/streets surrounding the building. It’s reasonable to assume that a person of normal sensibilities would be able to see exterior surveillance cameras with the naked eye. It’s also reasonable to assume that a person of normal sensibilities walking around a government building would believe upon seeing exterior surveillance cameras that they are being recorded from all angles/vantage points. It’s also reasonable to assume that a person of normal sensibilities walking around the State House at any time of day would be able to see security personnel, whether they are patrolling the exterior of the building or in their security posts. The Bureau expresses concern about the clarity of cameras at night in certain areas, but still photographs taken from the State House surveillance video system have appeared in publicly available court documents, including in another recent case involving vandalism along the exterior of the property (see attached). Exemption (n) Exemption (n) permits the withholding of: 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,

Tammy Kraus SPR25/2383 Page 3 August 27, 2025 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.” PETA, 477 Mass. at 289-90. 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 “[because 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. In its response, the Bureau states, ... the release of the video camera footage that you have requested in likely to jeopardize security at the State House as it captures the vantage point of security cameras that monitor perimeter security of the building and any perimeter security vulnerabilities during lowlight timeframes. The requested record could be used for surveillance purposes to understand when security posts are staffed with security Personnel as well. 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 measure, circumvent camera coverage and target access points to the building. The record would also illustrate the clarity of the camera at night in certain areas. 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.

Tammy Kraus SPR25/2383 Page 4 August 27, 2025 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. 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