Stokes, Brandon v. New Bedford, City of - Police Department (SPR 20261170)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 13, 2026 SPR26/1170 Lauren Oliveira Administrative Manager Central Records Access Officer City of New Bedford Solicitor’s Office 133 William Street New Bedford, MA 02740 Dear Ms. Oliveira: I have received the petition of Brandon Stokes, of 7 News WHDH Boston, appealing the response of the City of New Bedford (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On March 3, 2026, Mr. Stokes requested “New Bedford Police dashcam video and bodycam video of [a specified] incident on 2/13/26.” The City responded on March 16, 2026. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Stokes petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/1170, 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 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

Lauren Oliveira SPR26/1170 Page 2 April 13, 2026 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. Stokes argues the following: First, it’s unclear how the release of bodycam video of officers crashing their own cruiser reflects an ongoing investigation, such that it could potentially alert suspects to the activities of investigative officials. Second, it’s unclear how the requested records reflect internal techniques, procedures, or sources. Third, it’s unclear how the disclosure of the records would cause a chilling effect. The release of the requested video(s) will show how public officials carried out their public duties and how their actions resulted in damage to city property at taxpayer expense. The public has an increased interest in the release of these records. The City’s March 16th Response In its March 16, 2026 response, the City cites Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law for withholding body-worn camera footage. 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-

Lauren Oliveira SPR26/1170 Page 3 April 13, 2026 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):  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 March 16th response, under Exemption (f), the City argues the following: The requested records relate to a pending matter. Massachusetts Public Records Law recognizes that the release of records relating to an on-going investigation and prosecution would serve only to undermine the integrity of the Commonwealth’s case. See Bougas (purposes behind exemption (f) include “. . . 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

Lauren Oliveira SPR26/1170 Page 4 April 13, 2026 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”). Withholding the records allows investigatory officials involved in this matter to continue to provide assurance of confidentiality to private citizens so that they will speak openly about the matter until its conclusion. See Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass 59, 62 (1976). Ultimately, because premature disclosure would detract from effective law enforcement to such a degree as to operate in derogation, and not in support of the public interest (at this time), the City withholds the requested records pursuant to G.L. c. 4, § 7 (26)(f). Lastly, please note that the City does not have any in-vehicle (dash) camera footage associated with the requested records. Based on the information provided in the City’s March 16th response, it is unclear how the record contains “confidential investigative techniques, procedures, or sources of information[.]” Further, it is uncertain how the footage can be withheld in its entirety. The City must explain whether the video footage can be redacted, so that segregable portions can be provided. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); 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). Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Stokes 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. Stokes may further appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Brandon Stokes