Brandon Stokes v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20253320)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 26, 2025 SPR25/3320; SPR25/3321 Christine O’Donnell, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel Boston Police Department 1 City Hall Square Boston, MA 02201 Dear Attorney O’Donnell: I have received the petition of Brandon Stokes, of 7NEWS WHDH Boston, appealing the response of the Boston 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 the following records: SPR25/3320 “... bodycam video related to a “street takeover” in the South End on Sunday 10/5/25 where a crowd shot fireworks at police, eventually setting a cruiser on fire.” SPR25/3321 “…traffic cam video related to a “street takeover” in the South End on Sunday 10/5/25 where a crowd shot fireworks at police, eventually setting a cruiser on fire.” The Department provided responses on October 15, 2025 and October 27, 2025, assigning the request reference numbers B002962-101525 and B002963-101525 respectively. Unsatisfied with the Department’s responses, Mr. Stokes petitioned this office and these appeals, SPR25/3320 and SPR25/3321, were 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

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/3320; SPR25/3321 Page 2 November 26, 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. Current Appeal In his appeal Mr. Stokes states, “[i]t is unclear how the requested records can be withheld in their entirety under exemption (f). Witness video of this incident was widely published in the news media, and public officials have expressed concern over these types of incidents during news conferences in the wake of this incident. It’s unclear how releasing the video would alert suspects to the actions of investigative authorities when it has been widely publicized.” The Department’s October 15th and October 27th responses In its October 15, 2025 response, the Department acknowledged receipt of the request and assigned a reference number. In its October 27, 2025 response, the Department cited Exemption (f) of the Public Record Law to withhold the requested records. 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

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/3320; SPR25/3321 Page 3 November 26, 2025 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. As a matter of course, witness provided information is essential to efficient and effective law enforcement. This exemption is intended to allow investigative officials to provide an assurance of confidentiality to private citizens so that they will speak openly and voluntarily about matters. Bougas, 371 Mass at 62. Any information contained in a witness statement, which if disclosed would create a grave risk of directly or indirectly identifying the voluntary witness is subject to withholding Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Ret. Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 438 (1983). The disclosure of the names and other identifying information of victims, complainants and voluntary witnesses may deter other potential witnesses and citizens from providing information to law enforcement agencies in future investigations. Therefore, Exemption (f) will allow the withholding of the name and identifying details of any victims, complainants and voluntary witnesses, and where the individuals can be indirectly identified even with redaction. 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. To properly claim that Exemption (f) applies, a custodian must demonstrate that the disclosure of the records would have a prejudicial effect on its investigative efforts. This can be accomplished by describing how the records fall into one of three categories. These are the three categories that justify withholding records under Exemption (f):  The records reflect an ongoing investigation, such that any information relating to an ongoing investigation that could potentially alert suspects or targets to the activities of investigative officials;  The records reflect internal techniques, procedures, or sources, such that their disclosure would prejudice not only ongoing, but future law enforcement efforts; or  Disclosure of records would cause a chilling effect, because the exemption allows investigative officials to provide an assurance of confidentiality to individuals so that they will speak openly about matters under investigation. Such records in this third category

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/3320; SPR25/3321 Page 4 November 26, 2025 include: any details in statements that directly or indirectly identify a private citizen who volunteers as a witness; an entire statement if the identity of witnesses is known to the requester; and information voluntarily provided by an individual or entity to aid in the investigation. In its October 27th response, the Department stated the following: [t]he Department has located records responsive to your request. However, the Department is denying your request pursuant to Exemption (f) because the records you are requesting are related to an ongoing open investigation and its release at this time will prejudice effective law enforcement ... The Department recognizes that Exemption (f) does not create a blanket exemption of all investigative materials created and maintained by police departments. . . . Disclosure of the requested records at this time would interfere with enforcement proceedings and the investigatory process. The requested records are investigatory materials compiled out of public view. The bodyworn camera videos and traffic cameras are part of the investigation of this incident and disclosure at this time would prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure is not in the public interest. Disclosure at this time would prejudice effective law enforcement because officers are in the process of gathering, reviewing and analyzing evidence as well as identifying and interviewing witnesses. Disclosure at this time would prejudice effective law because prospective witnesses have not been interviewed. Disclosure of these records would disclose confidential investigative techniques, procedures or sources of information. Disclosure of the requested records would also alert potential suspects to the activities of investigative officials. Although the Department indicates that there is an open investigation regarding the requested records, it remains unclear how all the videos can be withheld under Exemption (f). Particularly, based on Mr. Stokes’ petition, where it appears a portion of the videos has been widely publicized, it is uncertain how disclosure of the records would prejudice the ongoing investigation. Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-290 (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). The Department must clarify this matter. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Stokes with a response to his 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 appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within 90 days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/3320; SPR25/3321 Page 5 November 26, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Brandon Stokes