Kariem McCormick v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20253766)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 6, 2025 SPR25/3766 Christine O’Donnell, Esq. City Council Boston Police Department 1 City Hall Square Boston, MA 02201 Dear Attorney O’Donnell: I have received the petition of Kariem McCormick 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 November 28, 2025, Mr. McCormick requested “all [Department] records related to Incident #252096763, which occurred on November 14, 2025, at the USPS Post Office located at 1602 Blue Hill Ave., Mattapan, MA,” specifically: [1] 911 call audio recordings placed by USPS employees or any third party related to this incident[;] [2] CAD (Computer Aided Dispatch) logs, including call notes, timestamps, officer assignments, arrival/departure times, and disposition[;] [3] Body-Worn Camera (BWC) footage from all responding officers, including but not limited to [an identified police officer] and any other officer(s) assigned to this incident[;] [4] Any radio transmissions related to this call for service[;] [5] Any supplemental reports, field reports, or officer notes associated with this incident beyond the incident report already provided. The Department provided responses on November 28, 2025 and December 17, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s responses, Mr. McCormick petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3766, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the Department provided a supplemental response on December 30, 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 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. SPR25/3766 Page 2 January 6, 2025 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. Att’y 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 November 28th and December 17th Responses On November 28, 2025, the Department acknowledged receipt of Mr. McCormick’s request assigning it reference number B003453-112825. In its December 17, 2025 response the Department provided Mr. McCormick with records. In a December 17, 2025 email to the Department, Mr. McCormick stated, “the document provided appears to consist solely of the offense/incident report and does not include other records expressly requested and referenced in the report itself. Specifically, the report states that Body-Worn Camera (BWC) was activated, yet no body-worn camera footage, CAD/dispatch logs, 911 audio, radio transmissions, or dispatcher notes were included…” Current Appeal In his December 22, 2025 appeal to this office, Mr. McCormick stated, “I am writing to appeal the incomplete response of the Boston Police Department to my public records request…The response provided by BPD was incomplete and non-compliant…” On December 30, 2025, the Department provided an additional response to Mr. McCormick, stating, “[t]he Department has located records responsive to your request. The records include body worn camera videos and the CAD report. The Department redacted the images of bystanders and post office employees in the responsive records pursuant to Exemption C of the Public Records Law.” In a December 31, 2025 email to this office and the Department, Mr. McCormick stated, “I have logged into the Public Records Center associated with Request No. B003453-112825, and at this time the only file available for download appears to be the incident report that was

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/3766 Page 3 January 6, 2025 previously provided. I do not see any body-worn camera video files or CAD records available in the portal. I am writing to confirm whether the body-worn camera footage and CAD records referenced in your response were intended to be included in the production, and if so, whether they will be uploaded separately or made available through another means.” Where Mr. McCormick submitted his request on November 28, 2025 and the Department has not provided all identified responsive records, I find the Department has not met its burden in responding to the request in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b). Consequently, the Department must provide an estimated date as to when it intends to provide the identified responsive records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. McCormick 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. McCormick may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Kariem McCormick