Brandon Stokes v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20253334)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 26, 2025 SPR25/3334 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 14, 2025, Mr. Stokes requested, “... Boston Police bodycam video related to the below incident”: At about 6:50 PM on Tuesday, October 7, 2025, protesters, who were protesting on the Boston Common began to move from the Common to the area of Tremont and Winter Streets. At that time, protesters turned on police kicking a marked cruiser, assaulting officers, blocking traffic and setting off devices causing red smoke in the air. A total of 8 males and 5 females were placed under arrest. No one has been booked yet and reports are not completed ... As of now, we have four officers that were injured during the incident. Two were transported to local hospitals. We have preliminary reports of officers with broken bones, all of the officer’s injuries are considered non‐life threatening. The Department provided a response on October 27, 2025, assigning the request reference number B002929-101425. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Stokes petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3334, was 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. SPR25/3334 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. The Department’s October 27th response In its October 27, 2025 response, the Department cited Exemption (f) of the Public Record Law to withhold the requested record in its entirety. 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. 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

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/3334 Page 3 November 26, 2025 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 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 asserted: [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 would prejudice effective law enforcement.

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/3334 Page 4 November 26, 2025 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. Disclosure could inhibit the investigatory process by influencing witness statements. Encouraging citizens and prospective witnesses to come forward and speak with police and the ability of the police department to establish trust with the community are essential elements of the investigatory process and effective law enforcement. Without this collaborative component, investigations will become more difficult and will impede the investigatory process. The collaboration between the public and the police and encouraging the public to cooperate with police investigations are reasons contemplated by the investigatory exemption. If prospective witnesses do not come forward, the investigatory process will be hampered. Such a result will prejudice future law enforcement efforts and the possibility of effective law enforcement which is not in the public interest. Further, releasing these records at this time may influence potential witnesses thereby compromising the investigatory process. To protect the integrity of the investigative process, information relating to confidential investigative techniques, procedures, and sources, and to maintain the ability to foster cooperation with the public, the Department is denying your request at this time. These records are part of an ongoing investigation and its disclosure would prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement; therefore, disclosure of the requested record is not in the public interest. Disclosure of this record would also have a chilling effect on future law enforcement efforts. ... Withholding this record in its entirety is necessary at this time to prevent interference with an ongoing investigation and law enforcement proceedings. Disclosure at this time would prejudice effective law enforcement and is not in the public interest. Once the investigation is concluded, the Department may reevaluate its position if you wish to make another public records request. Where the Department has explained that the record pertains to an active and ongoing investigation and that disclosure would alert potential suspects to the activities of investigative officials, I find the Department may permissibly claim Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/3334 Page 5 November 26, 2025 to withhold the requested record at this time. It should be noted that a change in the status of the investigation could impact the applicability of Exemption (f). Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Stokes is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Brandon Stokes