Yuki Cohen v. Pittsfield, City of - Police Department (SPR 20252516)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 8, 2025 SPR25/2516 Abigail Hunt Records Access Officer Pittsfield Police Department 39 Allen Street Pittsfield, MA 01201 Dear Ms. Hunt: I have received the petition of Yuki Cohen, on behalf of her attorney, William E. Martin, Esq., appealing the response of the Pittsfield 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 June 25, 2025, Attorney Martin requested “any police reports and the Officer’s body camera video for [two identified incidents] on June 13, 2025, and June 14, 2025.” Attorney Martin indicated that this matter related to a “Show Cause Summons” that he provided with the request as an attachment. The Department provided multiple responses on August 22, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s responses, Ms. Cohen petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2516, was opened as a result. Status of the Requestor; Reason for the Request In her appeal petition, Ms. Cohen states that she is “scheduled to appear at a Licensing Board hearing on Monday, August 25, 2025” and asserts that records responsive to her above request are “directly relevant to my ability to respond to the allegations against my business, and withholding . . . constitutes a denial of due process.” Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Therefore, Ms. Cohen’s interest in obtaining the records shall have no bearing on the public nature of the record. However, it is unclear if Ms. Cohen may have a greater right of access to the responsive records outside the Public Records Law. The parties are encouraged to communicate to 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

Abigail Hunt SPR25/2516 Page 2 September 8, 2025 determine if there is another means affording Ms. Cohen a greater right of access to the responsive records. 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 August 22nd Responses In its initial response dated August 22, 2025, a representative of the Department sought confirmation from Ms. Cohen that she “received the BWC footage” that the Department’s Records Access Officer provided. In her reply on the same date, Ms. Cohen indicated that she had “not received the footage.” In its second response dated August 22, 2025, a Department representative advised Ms. Cohen that “[t]he footage was sent to [her] [on August 20, 2025] through Evidence.com.” In its third response also dated August 22nd, the Department representative indicated that the Department, “just reshared the video with [Ms. Cohen].” Subsequently, Ms. Cohen replied to the Department in an email on the same date and confirmed that she was able to access the responsive video. She additionally asked, “is there only one video?” and further noted that she sought “a second video at approximately a little after midnight on June 14[.]” In its fourth and final response to Ms. Cohen dated August 22, 2025, the Department asserted that the responsive video provided in its previous August 22nd response is the only responsive record the Department was able to provide to Ms. Cohen “per [its] policies under the Public Record Law.” A Department representative further explained, “[a]fter reviewing the hours of footage from all officers on the scene, the footage that has been shared is the only footage I am permitted to release from the PD.” The Department representative additionally stated,

Abigail Hunt SPR25/2516 Page 3 September 8, 2025 “[f]urther footage would need to be requested through the DA’s Office as it directly pertains to arrests.” Current Appeal In her August 25, 2025 appeal petition, Ms. Cohen explains, “[o]n August 22, 2025, I requested body-worn camera footage from [Department employees] . . . while they were inside my licensed premises[.]” She indicates that the Department “denied [her] request without citing a specific exemption under G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. [26] . . . and referred [her] to the District Attorney’s Office.” Additionally, Ms. Cohen contends that the Department has not “issued a valid written denial” and requests that this office “[r]equire the . . . custodian to issue a formal denial citing the statutory exemption and rationale.” Based on the Department’s responses, it is unclear if the Department possesses any additional video footage responsive to Ms. Cohen’s request. Additionally, it is uncertain how the Department does not have possession, custody or control of “[f]urther footage . . . directly [pertaining] to arrests” where its employees may have created these records in furtherance of Department business. If the Department does possess responsive records, it must either provide the records, or cite an exemption to the Public Records Law, and explain with specificity how such an exemption applies to withhold or redact the records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based”). The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). The Department must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Cohen with a response to her 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. Ms. Cohen 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: Yuki Cohen