Stokes, Brandon v. Suffolk County District Attorney's Office (SPR 20260124)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 27, 2026 SPR26/0124 Elizabeth Schwab, Esq. Records Access Officer Public Records Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office One Bulfinch Place Boston, MA 02114 Dear Attorney Schwab: I have received the petition of Brandon Stokes, of 7NEWS WHDH Boston, appealing the response of the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office (Office) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 16, 2025, Mr. Stokes requested, “... public records in the case against [an identified individual] - who is accused of hitting [an identified] Mass State Police . . . Lt. with a motorcycle outside the Revere Barracks on 6/23/25:” including [1] Surveillance video from the MSP Revere barracks[;] [2] MSP bodycam video[;] [3] MSP dashcam video[.] The Office responded on December 29, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Office’s response, Mr. Stokes petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0124, was opened as a result. Subsequently, the Office sent a further response on January 14, 2026. 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 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

Elizabeth Schwab, Esq. SPR26/0124 Page 2 January 27, 2026 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 Office’s December 29th and January 14th Responses In its December 29, 2025 response, the Office cited Exemptions (d) and (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold the responsive records in their entirety. In its January 14, 2026 response, the Office advised that the matter is pending in Suffolk Superior Court known as Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Akram Elmoukhtari, Suffolk Superior Court, Docket No. 2584CR00441. Active 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. In light of the pending matter, Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Akram Elmoukhtari, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). I further decline to opine on the applicability of Exemptions (d) and (f) of the Public Records Law to the requested records. It should be noted that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Brandon Stokes