Brandon Stokes v. Fall River, City of - Police Department (SPR 20253043)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 30, 2025 SPR25/3043 Ashley Ferreira Records Clerk Fall River Police Department 685 Pleasant Street Fall River, MA 02721 Dear Ms. Ferreira: I have received the petition of Brandon Stokes, of 7 News WHDH Boston, appealing the response of the Fall River 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 October 15, 2025, Mr. Stokes requested “Fall River Police bodycam video and dashcam video of a ‘street takeover’ on Sunday 10/5/25.” The Department responded on October 15, 2025 and assigned reference number P008043-101525 to this request. 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 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

Ashley Ferreira SPR25/3043 Page 2 October 30, 2025 custodian must provide the responsive records. The Department’s October 15th Response In its October 15, 2025 response, the Department argues the following: The matter is still under investigation as the conduct of the defendants has affected multiple jurisdictions through the commonwealth, With that said, the requested of record [sic] is not being released at this time for the following reasons: 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, and the encouragement of individual citizens to come forward and speak freely with police concerning matters under investigation. Burden of Specificity The Department’s October 15th response did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be on the custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption to withhold or redact records. Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear which exemption the Department is citing in order to withhold the requested records. Additionally, it is unclear from the Department’s response, which specific records the Department intends to withhold. 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”). See also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511; Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979). It is further uncertain why the records must be withheld in their entirety. The Department must explain whether the records can be redacted so that segregable portions can be provided. 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). 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 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 Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Ashley Ferreira SPR25/3043 Page 3 October 30, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Brandon Stokes