Brandon Stokes v. Gloucester, City of - City Clerk (SPR 20252576)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 12, 2025 SPR25/2576 Danielle E. Argentino Assistant City Clerk Records Clerk City of Gloucester 9 Dale Avenue Gloucester, MA 01930 Dear Ms. Argentino: I have received the petition of Brandon Stokes, of 7NEWS WHDH Boston, appealing the response of the City of Gloucester (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, §10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 1, 2025, Mr. Stokes requested, “...surveillance video of this incident from the DPW facility on 7/24/25 . . . [regarding an] arrest . . . [of] a Gloucester man following an incident at the City’s Department of Public Works facility. [An identified individual] . . . was arrested and charged with: Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle.” Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR25/2463 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 27, 2025). In my August 27th determination, I learned that the City provided Mr. Stokes with a supplemental response on August 26, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s August 26th response, Mr. Stokes petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2576, was opened as a result. Subsequently, I learned that the City provided Mr. Stokes with a further response on September 9, 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). 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

Danielle E. Argentino SPR25/2576 Page 2 September 12, 2025 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 suspect in this case has already been identified; the surveillance video does not reflect internal techniques that would prejudice law enforcement efforts; and it’s unclear how the disclosure of routine building surveillance video would have a ‘chilling effect.’... The requested materials were not compiled as part of a police investigation. The records at the center of this request were created as part of routine business operations from surveillance camera(s) at a city DPW facility. Additionally, even though an investigation may still be ongoing, that does not necessarily mean the records can be withheld in their entirety.” The City’s August 26th and September 9th Responses In its August 26, 2025 response, the City cited Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested record in its entirety. In its September 9th response the City stated, The City maintains that record requested should be exempt from disclosure pursuant to G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f) because they directly pertain to a matter under open investigation by the Gloucester Police Department. . . . “The exemption … recognizes that the disclosure of certain investigatory materials could detract from effective law enforcement to such a degree as to operate in derogation, and not in support, of the public interest. Included among the purposes in providing this exemption would be the avoidance of premature disclosure of the Commonwealth’s case prior to trial premature disclosure of the Commonwealth’s case prior to trial… .”, Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 65 (1976). The City further advises that the matter is pending in Gloucester District Court. See Commonwealth v. William Evans, Docket number 2539CR000291.

Danielle E. Argentino SPR25/2576 Page 3 September 12, 2025 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 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. Pending Litigation 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation.

Danielle E. Argentino SPR25/2576 Page 4 September 12, 2025 Conclusion In light of the pending matter, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). I further decline to opine on the applicability of Exemption (f). It should be noted that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Brandon Stokes