Richard Solomon v. Cambridge, City of - Law Department (SPR 20252614)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 15, 2025 SPR25/2614 Seah Levy Public Records Access Officer City of Cambridge 795 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 Dear Ms. Levy: I have received the petition of Richard Solomon appealing the response of the City of Cambridge (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 27, 2025, Mr. Solomon requested, “all police body camera footage from August 3, 2025 between 12:25 and 12:50 during the protest in Harvard Square outside Capital One.” The City responded on September 3, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Solomon petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2614, 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. 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. 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

Seah Levy SPR25/2614 Page 2 September 15, 2025 The City’s September 3rd Response In its September 3, 2025 response, the City cited Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested records in their entirety. Current Appeal In his September 4, 2025, appeal petition, Mr. Solomon contends, “[t]he record-holder denied my request without any support for the contention that fulfilling the request would harm an ongoing investigation.” 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 289-290. Under Exemption (f), the City advised, “[b]ecause there is an ongoing investigation related to this matter, the information requested is exempt from disclosure pursuant to Exemption M. G. L. c. 4 § 7(26)(f) of the Public Records law.” Although the City claims in its response that it has an open investigation regarding the requested records, it is unclear how the records, in their entirety, can be withheld under Exemption (f). It is unclear from the City’s response whether the records contain confidential investigative techniques that would be prejudicial to the ongoing investigation if disclosed. The City also did not demonstrate how disclosure of any portion of the responsive records “would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not

Seah Levy SPR25/2614 Page 3 September 15, 2025 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). Further, I find that the City must identify the records in its possession that are responsive to the request. To deny access to a record or portion of 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); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3)(c)(4). As a result, I find that the City did not meet its burden of specificity in claiming Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold the records in their entirety. The City must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Solomon with a response to his 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. Solomon may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within 90 days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Richard Solomon