Brandon Stokes v. East Longmeadow, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20253326)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 25, 2025 SPR25/3326 Lori Hall Records Access Officer East Longmeadow Police Department 160 Somers Road East Longmeadow, MA 01028 Dear Ms. Hall: I have received the petition of Brandon Stokes, of 7 News WHDH Boston, appealing the response of the East Longmeadow 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 August 28, 2025, Mr. Stokes requested “all video from East Longmeadow Police related to [a specified] incident. This request should include but not be limited to police body camera video as well as cruiser camera video.” The Department responded on September 4, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Stokes petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/3326, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the Department provided a further response by email to this office and Mr. Stokes on November 17, 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). 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. 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

Lori Hall SPR25/3326 Page 2 November 25, 2025 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 petition, Mr. Stokes argues the following: The department is using the CORI statute in an overly broad manner. The department has failed to explain with specificity how the CORI statute applies to the responsive records. The records cannot be withheld in their entirety. The Department’s September 4th and November 17th Responses In its September 4, 2025 response, the Department states that “this department intends to withhold these videos due to the applicability of the following exemption and the reasons set forth below,” and cites the Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) statute, as it operates through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law, for withholding the responsive records. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a); G. L. c. 6, § 167. In its November 17, 2025 response, the Department further states that “this is still an open case in court with the next court date being 11/25/25,” and goes on to explain that “I don’t think there is any body cam footage that would not potentially be part of the court case, therefore all of it must be withheld.” 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. This office has reviewed the docket of the trial court and verified that the requested records are the subject of active and ongoing litigation in Palmer District Court. See Commonwealth v. Robert Y. O’Sullivan, Palmer District Court Docket No. 2543CR001249 (Sept. 19, 2025). In light of the pending litigation, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Additionally, I decline to opine on the applicability of the CORI statute as it operates through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested records. Please note that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b).

Lori Hall SPR25/3326 Page 3 November 25, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Brandon Stokes