Richard Solomon v. Cambridge, City of - Law Department (SPR 20252858)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 15, 2025 SPR25/2858 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. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/2614 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 15, 2025). In my September 15th determination, I ordered the City to clarify its claims under Exemption (f) for withholding the responsive records. The City provided a response on September 29, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Solomon petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2858, 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. 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 SPR25/2858 Page 2 October 15, 2025 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. The City’s September 29th Response In its September 29, 2025 response, the City cited Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested records in their entirety. Specifically, the City stated the following: The Requestor is seeking records that are the subject of ongoing criminal investigations and that concern use-of-force reports filed by Cambridge Police Department personnel on the date of August 3, 2025. On this date, officers were allegedly assaulted by members of a crowd protesting outside Capital One Bank, in Harvard Square, and officers allegedly responded with force and pepper spray. As a result of the alleged assaults and other behavior, including overrunning metal barricades, striking an officer with a megaphone, and throwing objects at officers and the alleged use of force and pepper spray by officers, the Cambridge Police Department made arrests and opened investigations. Before responding to the Request, the City’s Public Records Access Officer confirmed that the Cambridge Police Department investigations are ongoing. . . . Here, due to the ongoing nature of the criminal investigations and the desire to not “alert suspect[s] to the activities of investigative officials,” and the severity of the allegations that are currently under investigation, the City appropriately denied the Request. Furthermore, redacting the requested videos is not practical prior to the City having a meaningful opportunity to review video footage from the 38 police officers present at the scene who produced 45 hours of video footage. Production of any of the requested documents/information will likely so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest. Given the serious nature of this investigation and the possibility that a release of these records could prejudice the investigation and its results, the City’s withholding of the requested documents is proper pursuant to Exemption (f). . . . Current Appeal In his September 30, 2025, appeal petition, Mr. Solomon states, “I am appealing again as the [C]ity has not met the burden to qualify for [E]xemption (f).”

Seah Levy SPR25/2858 Page 3 October 15, 2025 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 reiterates in its September 29, 2025 response that it has an open investigation regarding the requested records, it remains unclear how the records, in their entirety, can be withheld under Exemption (f). It is additionally 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 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). 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.

Seah Levy SPR25/2858 Page 4 October 15, 2025 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