Coleman, Rory v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20260442)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 18, 2026 SPR26/0442 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 Rory M. Coleman 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 January 23, 2026, Mr. Coleman requested “[c]omplete case folder for IAD Case 2022-0495. … Investigators: [two identified individuals]. Requesting all audio/video recordings, transcripts, investigator notes, witness statements, Form 26s, findings, determinations, dispositions, correspondence, exhibits, and complete case file index.” Previous Appeals The requested records were the subject of previous appeals. See SPR25/3647 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 24, 2025), SPR25/3847 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 7, 2026), and SPR26/0103 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 23, 2026). In my January 23rd determination, I learned the Department had provided a supplemental response to Mr. Coleman’s request. The Department responded on January 23, 2026 and February 2, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Department’s responses, Mr. Coleman petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0442, 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. SPR26/0442 Page 2 February 18, 2026 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. Status of the Requestor Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Mr. Coleman’s status shall have no bearing on the public status of any existing responsive records. The Department’s January 23rd and February 2nd Responses On January 23, 2026, the Department acknowledged receipt of Mr. Coleman’s request and assigned reference number B000271-012326. On February 2, 2026, the Department stated, “the Department provided you with the requested records under B003319-111525 on December 23, 2025, January 2, 2026, and January 21, 2026.” Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Coleman contends: The Department claims it already provided the requested records under a prior PRR, but the prior production was incomplete and did not include all items requested in this PRR. … The Department cannot satisfy a new, specific request by pointing to a prior incomplete production that was itself the subject of three separate Supervisor of Records appeals. Each of those appeals was closed after partial supplemental production, but the underlying deficiencies were never fully resolved. Referencing the same incomplete production does not constitute a good faith response to PRR B000271-012326.

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR26/0442 Page 3 February 18, 2026 Notably, the audio recording produced on January 2, 2026 under B003319- 111525 was from IAD Case 2024-0152 (the [identified] interview of July 8, 2024), not IAD Case 2022-0495 (the [identified] interview of September 10, 2024). The Department has never produced the 2022-0495 interview recording. Further, in his appeal petition, Mr. Coleman indicates that the following records remain outstanding: [1] Audio/video recordings of my September 10, 2024 interview with [two identified individuals]. . . [2] Complete witness statements and Form 26 reports from all officers interviewed. [3] Complete case file index identifying all documents in the file. [4] All correspondence between IAD investigators, command staff, and the Commissioner’s office regarding this case. [5] All exhibits referenced in investigator reports. . . . Additional Records 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). 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). 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 issues raised in Mr. Coleman’s appeal, it is unclear whether the Department possesses additional responsive records. Specifically, the Department must clarify whether it possesses “[the] [a]udio/video recordings of my September 10, 2024 interview with [two identified individuals,] [c]omplete witness statements and Form 26 reports from all officers interviewed[,] [c]omplete case file index identifying all documents in the file[,] [a]ll correspondence between IAD investigators, command staff, and the Commissioner’s office regarding this case[, and] [a]ll exhibits referenced in investigator reports.” To the extent that additional records exist, I find the Department must provide them in a manner consistent with the Public Records Law or identify an exemption that applies to withhold the records from disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b). The Department must clarify this matter. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Coleman 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

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR26/0442 Page 4 February 18, 2026 pre@sec.state.ma.us. Mr. Coleman may further 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: Rory M. Coleman