Manlapaz, Myles v. Brockton, City of - Police Department (SPR 20260941)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 27, 2026 SPR26/0941 Lieutenant Victor Perez Records Access Officer Brockton Police Department 7 Commercial Street Brockton, MA 02302 Dear Lieutenant Perez: I have received three petitions of Myles H. Manlapaz, Esq., of Jellison and Nathanson, LLP, appealing the response of the Brockton Police Department (Department) to requests for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 11, 2025, Attorney Manlapaz requested the following: [1] All records pertaining to K-9 Kilo and K-9 Hawk[;] [2] All internal affairs records pertaining to two identified individuals. This request includes complaints, notes, interviews, and other materials[;] [3] All records concerning the Brockton Police Department’s policy on training and using police K-9s, responding to shots fired, and clearing a building for suspects. On November 20, 2025, Attorney Manlapaz requested the following: [1] All reports pertaining to [an identified Sergeant] or K-9 Kilo from October 5- 10, 2025[;] [2] All records pertaining to [an identified individual] from 2015 to present[;] [3] All records pertaining to [an identified individual] from 2011 to present[;] [4] All records pertaining to [an identified individual] from 2012 to present[;] [5] All records pertaining to [an identified individual] from 2014 to present[;] [6] All records pertaining to [an identified individual] from 2018 to present[;] [7] All records pertaining to [an identified individual][;] [8] [An identified address][;] [9] All internal affairs records for [four identified police officers]. This request includes complaints, notes, interviews, and other materials[;] 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

Lieutenant Victor Perez SPR26/0914 Page 2 March 27, 2026 [10] A list of all members of the Special Reaction Team from 2010 to present. On November 30, 2025, Attorney Manlapaz requested the following: [A]ll records and information relating to the pursuit and apprehension of a suspect on 10/5/2025, in Brockton and/or East Bridgewater. This request includes police reports, dispatch recordings, body-worn camera footage, and all other information. This incident occurred around 2:30-5:00 AM and was investigated by the Brockton Police Department under [an identified summons number]. The suspect was [an identified individual]. Additionally, the suspect’s injuries were assessed at booking. Please provide any photos taken. Previous Appeals These requests were the subject of previous appeals. See SPR26/0114 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 27, 2026); SPR26/0115 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 27, 2026); and SPR26/0116 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 22, 2026). In SPR26/0114, I ordered the Department to provide an estimated date as to when it intended to complete its search and provide records responsive to Attorney Manlapaz’s November 20th request. In SPR26/0115, I ordered the Department to clarify whether it possessed records responsive to Attorney Manlapaz’s November 30th request. In SPR26/0116, I ordered the Department to provide Attorney Manlapaz with a response to his November 11th request. The Department responded on January 28, 2026. Unsatisfied with the response, Attorney Manlapaz petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0941, 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). 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. 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.

Lieutenant Victor Perez SPR26/0914 Page 3 March 27, 2026 The Department’s January 28th Response In its January 28, 2026 response, the Department stated the following: [1] November 11, 2025 Public Records Request [a] The November 11, 2025 request was forwarded to the Brockton Police Department’s Internal affairs Unit for processing, as it sought internal affairs materials. [An identified police sergeant] is the custodian of records for Internal Affairs and related departmental policies responsive to this request[;] [b] To the extent any responsive records involve or arise from litigation or legal claims involving the City of Brockton or the Brockton Police Department, such records are maintained by the City’s Law Department, not the Police Department[;] [2] November 20, 2025 Public Records Request [a] The November 20, 2025 request is related in part to the same individuals and subject matter as the November 11 request and was similarly directed for appropriate review. As noted above, records connected to Internal Affairs matters are maintained by Internal Affairs, while any records involving pending or prior legal actions against the City or the Police Department are maintained by the Law Department[;] [3] November 30, 2025 Public Records Request [a] The Brockton Police Department has identified records responsive to the November 30, 2025 request concerning an incident involving [an identified individual] on October 5, 2025. However, the referenced incident remains part of an open and active criminal matter. Disclosure of the requested arrest report and related records at this time would likely prejudice effective law enforcement and any related prosecution. Accordingly, these records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f). Current Appeal In his March 16, 2026 petition to this office, Attorney Manlapaz stated the following: [1] 11/11/2025 Request [a] I contacted the Department about this request numerous times. The Department belatedly responded by stating that the request had been forwarded to the internal affairs department. It did not respond to follow- up inquiries or produce any records. I filed an appeal with the SOR. In January 2026, the SOR issued a decision directing the Department to respond to my request. The Department stated that it forwarded the request to the internal affairs records holder, as they had told me 8 weeks earlier. Of note, only one part of the 11/11/2025 request seeks internal affairs materials[;]

Lieutenant Victor Perez SPR26/0914 Page 4 March 27, 2026 [2] 11/20/2025 Request [a] I reiterated to the Department by phone and e-mail what I was seeking. Over the phone, the Department repeatedly demanded, “what is this about?”. . . . When the Department did not produce any records, I appealed to the SOR. In January 2026, the SOR issued a determination directing the Department to respond to my 11/20/2025 request[;] [b] In response to the SOR’s determination, the Department stated that “any records involving pending or prior legal actions against the City or the Police Department are maintained by the Law Department.” This does not address my request, which calls for public records in the police department’s possession. Items 2-7 in the request involve people who have accused the Department of misconduct. Items 2-6 involve people who have publicly sued the Department or its police officers. Almost all were involved in an incident with the Brockton Police Department that resulted in records such as field reports and dispatch recordings[;] [c] The Department also responded by stating that it has directed the 11/20/2025 request to the internal affairs department because that is what the request involves. But, of the ten bullet points to the request, only one seeks internal affairs records (which, of course, are public records). Although internal affairs records may be one of many kinds of records responsive to the other paragraphs in the 11/20/2025 request, those paragraphs also call for other kinds of public records, such as incident reports and dispatch recordings[;] [d] The Department has not alleged, let alone proven by a preponderance of the evidence, that any exemption applies to any part of the 11/20/2025 request[;] [3] 11/30/2025 Request [a] . . . . The Department has not met its burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that exemption (f) applies to any particular record, let alone to every record relevant to the 11/30/2025 request…. Records in Existence – November 11th and November 20th Requests 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 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 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). In this case, based on the Department’s responses and the information provided in Attorney Manlapaz’s appeal petition, it is unclear whether the Department possesses records responsive to Attorney Manlapaz’s requests. If the Department does possess responsive records, it must either provide the records, or cite an exemption to the Public Records Law, and explain

Lieutenant Victor Perez SPR26/0914 Page 5 March 27, 2026 with specificity how such an exemption applies to withhold or redact the records. See G. L. c. § 10(b)(iv) (a written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based”). The Department must clarify this matter. Exemption (f) – November 30th Request 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. As a matter of course, witness provided information is essential to efficient and effective law enforcement. This exemption is intended to allow investigative officials to provide an assurance of confidentiality to private citizens so that they will speak openly and voluntarily about matters. Bougas, 371 Mass. at 62. Any information contained in a witness statement, which if disclosed would create a grave risk of directly or indirectly identifying the voluntary witness is subject to withholding. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Ret. Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 438 (1983). The disclosure of the names and other identifying information of victims, complainants and voluntary witnesses may deter other potential witnesses and citizens from providing information to law enforcement agencies in future investigations. Therefore, Exemption (f) will allow the withholding of the name and identifying details of any victims, complainants and voluntary witnesses, and where the individuals can be indirectly identified even with redaction. 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):

Lieutenant Victor Perez SPR26/0914 Page 6 March 27, 2026  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. Although the Department claims that there is an open investigation, it is unclear how the investigation remains ongoing and how the requested records are part of the ongoing investigation. Also, it is not clear how disclosure of the records would disclose confidential investigative techniques, procedures or sources of information. Further, it is uncertain how the records, in their entirety, can be withheld under Exemption (f). Specifically, the Department did not provide any supporting information to 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). See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90 (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. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Attorney Manlapaz 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. Attorney Manlapaz may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Lieutenant Victor Perez SPR26/0914 Page 7 March 27, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Myles H. Manlapaz, Esq.