Kamara, Ibrahim v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20260168)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 29, 2026 SPR26/0168 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 Ibrahim Kamara, 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 14, 2025, Mr. Kamara requested the following: Any and all surveillance video collected, copied, viewed, downloaded, requested, or received by any Boston Police Department personnel relating to the incident on: … February 23, 2025…. Any record showing who retrieved, viewed, logged, possessed, or reviewed the footage, including: Evidence collection logs Detective reports Video request logs Email communications Chain-of-custody documents Any reports, notes, or supplemental documents by [an identified Officer] related to: Video review Evidence requests Communications with USPS or Jamaica’s Best Restaurant II Confirmation whether the video exists, existed, or was deleted, and if deleted: The date of deletion The reason for deletion The retention policy used 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. SPR26/0168 Page 2 January 29, 2026 This request is related to Boston Police Case #252014671. On December 17, 2026, Mr. Kamara submitted a second public records request as follows: Please associate this message with Public Records Request B003317-111425 (related to BPD Case No. 252014671). The public records portal is not allowing me to submit follow-up messages under the existing thread.1) Preservation request…. I understand BPD denied release of certain records under Exemption (f). To narrow my request and to seek any reasonably segregable, non-exempt administrative records, please provide the following policies and logs (even if the underlying video is withheld): Retention policy/schedule applicable to any responsive video or surveillance footage (including how long such video is retained before deletion/overwrite, and whether preservation holds are available). Evidence/property intake records reflecting whether any video/footage (or still images) was received, logged, or stored in connection with Case No. 252014671, including: any property/evidence item number(s) date received/created general description (e.g., “surveillance video,” “digital media,” etc.) current disposition/status fields (without disclosing exempt investigative content) Chain-of-custody documentation for any such digital media (if maintained), including transfers between personnel/units (names/titles may be redacted if required). Audit/activity logs or system tracking records showing access, export, download, sharing, copying, or deletion activity for any responsive digital media tied to this case (dates/times and event types only, with sensitive details redacted as needed). The Department responded to Mr. Kamara’s first request on December 2, 2025, and assigned reference number B003317-111425 to this request. The Department provided responses to Mr. Kamara’s second request on December 22, 2025 and January 2, 2026, and assigned reference number B003632-121725 to this request. Unsatisfied with the Department’s responses, Mr. Kamara petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0168, was opened as a result.

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR26/0168 Page 3 January 29, 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 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 petition, Mr. Kamara contends: I am appealing the Boston Police Department’s responses/handling of two related Public Records Requests concerning the same underlying matter (BPD Case No. 252014671): 1. PRR B003317-111425 (initial request), and 2. PRR B003632-121725 (follow-up preservation + narrowed administrative- records request). I respectfully request review and an order requiring BPD to issue compliant responses…. I respectfully request that the Supervisor order BPD to provide compliant responses for both PRRs, including: 1. custody clarification by category for the responsive records at issue; 2. confirmation of the scope of search conducted (units/systems searched); 3. production of reasonably segregable, non-exempt administrative records responsive to PRR B003632-121725 (retention policies, intake metadata, chain- of-custody fields, and audit/activity logs limited to dates/times/event types); and 4. if withholding any BPD-maintained records, identification of the specific exemption(s) relied upon and production of any segregable portions. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, on January 20, 2026, Mr. Kamara explained in

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR26/0168 Page 4 January 29, 2026 an email to this office, “I pursued clarification from the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office. … I provide this context solely to clarify the custodial uncertainty at issue: BPD has redirected the request to the District Attorney’s Office, while the District Attorney’s Office has stated it is awaiting the investigative file.” On January 24, 2026, Mr. Kamara further clarified, “[t]he underlying criminal matter was dismissed without prejudice on September 30, 2025. Attached is documentation reflecting that disposition.” The Department’s December 2nd Response In its December 2, 2025 response, the Department cited Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold responsive records. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f). 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. 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. Confidential investigative techniques may also be withheld indefinitely if disclosure is deemed to be prejudicial to future law enforcement activities. Bougas, 371 Mass. at 62.

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR26/0168 Page 5 January 29, 2026 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 requestor; and information voluntarily provided by an individual or entity to aid in the investigation. In its December 2nd response to the November 14th request, under Exemption (f), the Department asserted: The 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 is denying your request at this time because the records are part of an open and ongoing investigation and disclosure will prejudice future law enforcement efforts for the reasons stated below. Disclosure of the requested records at this time would interfere with the investigative process. The requested records 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 of these records would disclose confidential investigative techniques, procedures or sources of information. Disclosure could inhibit the investigatory process by discouraging potential witnesses to come forward or influence 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

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR26/0168 Page 6 January 29, 2026 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. … However, providing segregable portions of the requested records are not possible without revealing confidential investigative techniques, procedures or sources of information. 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. Although the Department claims that there is an open investigation, based on Mr. Kamara’s claim that “[t]he underlying criminal matter was dismissed without prejudice on September 30, 2025[,]” it is unclear how the investigation remains ongoing, and how the records, in their entirety, relate to the ongoing investigation. It is additionally unclear from the Department’s response how all the requested records contain confidential investigative techniques. The Department also did not demonstrate how disclosure of any segregable portion of the responsive records “would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest[,]” as required under Exemption (f). Reinstein, 378 Mass. 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 these matters. Further, based on the Department’s response, it is unclear what type of records it possesses that it is withholding from disclosure pursuant to Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. To deny access to a record under the Public Records Law, a records access officer must identify the record, categories of records, or portions of the record it intends to withhold. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3)(c)(4). Therefore, the Department must identify the records it has in its possession that it is withholding.

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR26/0168 Page 7 January 29, 2026 Records in Existence; Possession, Custody, or Control On December 22, 2025, in the Department’s response to the December 17th request, the Department stated, “[w]e will treat this as a new request and handle under MA Public Record Law. I don’t believe we can merge old requests with new requests. We will be in touch.” Further on January 2, 2026, the Department responded, “I was told by the detective that you need to reach out to the District Attorney’s Office for records responsive.” The Department is advised that the duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). Further, under the Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). However, in accordance with the Public Records Law, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). Based on the Department’s response, and information provided in Mr. Kamara’s appeal petition, it is unclear whether the Department possesses records responsive to the December 17th request. The Department must clarify this matter. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Kamara with a response to each request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten 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. Kamara may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s responses within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Ibrahim Kamara