Landais, Samuel v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20260231)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 4, 2026 SPR26/0231 Christine O’Donnell, Esq. Records Access Officer Boston Police Department 1 City Hall Square Boston, MA 02201 Dear Attorney O’Donnell: I have received the petition of Samuel Landais 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 27, 2025, Mr. Landais requested “…BWC footage from Officers ... on 9/24/2022 between 8:30 am to 11:00 am as it relates to their response to ... Floyd St that day. [An identified Sergeant] was able to show me a copy of the incident report in the days following. I would also like a copy of that.” Previous Appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR25/3762 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 31, 2025); and SPR26/0074 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 22, 2026). In my January 22nd determination, I ordered the Department to clarify whether it possessed additional responsive records. The Department responded on January 22, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Landais petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0231, 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 municipality of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). 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. SPR26/0231 Page 2 February 4, 2026 It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. See 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. See 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 January 22nd Response In its January 5, 2026 response, the Department stated, “[t]he body-worn camera videos that the Department provided are the records that exist. There are not additional body-worn camera videos. The Department did not provide you with an incident report because your request was only for body-worn camera videos. Upon this appeal, the Department conducted a search of its records with the information you provided in your request. There is not an incident report that exists with the date provided in the Department’s care, custody, and control. The records that were provided to you on January 5, 2026 are the complete records that are responsive to this request.” Current Appeal In his January 22, 2026 appeal to this office, Mr. Landais stated, “[t]oday, on 1/22/2026 I received a response from the Department stating that the three body worn camera videos previously released to me were the only records surrounding this incident that the BPD has in their possession. This is a knowingly and demonstrably false assertion made by the Department. In September of 2025, the Coty of Boston’s Office of Police Accountability and Transparency submitted their report on the investigation (#510) their office conducted into allegation of gross negligence surrounding this matter. In this report, OPAT clearly lists FOUR videos of body worn camera footage released to their office by the Boston Police Department…” In a January 26, 2026 email to this office, Mr. Landais stated, “[i]t should also be noted that while the department has denied the existence of a police report to this incident during the course of this appeal, the department has affirmed the existence of this same incident report in past records request… I’ve attached to this email a copy of the response from the department in which they clearly acknowledge the existence of the police report by telling me that it was a “walk-in” report. …The uncovering of the report referenced by the department in their response to my records request on 7/8/2025 is instrumental in painting the full picture and understanding this entire matter as a whole.”

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR26/0231 Page 3 February 4, 2026 Additional Records – Incident Report Based on Mr. Landais’ petition and the Department’s response, it is unclear whether the Department possesses additional responsive records. Specifically, it is unclear whether the Department possesses an incident report which is responsive to Mr. Landais’ request. 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). Consequently, the Department must clarify whether it possesses additional responsive records. No Duty to Create Records – Body-Worn Camera Records Please be advised, under the Public Records Law, a custodian is not required to create a record in response to a public records request. See G. L. c. 66, § 6A(d). In addition, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). 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). Where the Department has stated that it does not possess additional body-worn camera records responsive to Mr. Landais’ request and this office has not authority to compel the Department to create records, I will now consider this aspect of the administrative appeal closed. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Landais 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. Landais 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: Samuel Landais