Sophia Davidson v. Cambridge, City of - Law Department (SPR 20253279)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 14, 2025 SPR25/3279 Seah Levy Public Records Access Officer City of Cambridge Law Department 795 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 Dear Ms. Levy: I have received the petition of Sophia Davidson, on behalf of Joshua Dankoff, of Citizens for Juvenile Justice, 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 7, 2025, Mr. Dankoff requested: [1] All departmental or municipal policies regarding communication and information sharing between departmental officers or employees and federal agents/agencies within the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) or the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), including but not limited to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The records request includes, but is not limited to, policies regarding: [A] Fingerprint and other data sharing, [B] ICE detainer requests, [C] Compliance with federal immigration enforcement efforts, including guidance or policies around when communication with ICE officers is allowed, and [D] Communicating with federal immigration enforcement officers, This request covers any policies that are currently in effect or that have been in effect at any point on or after January 20, 2025. [2] The three most recent communications (e.g., emails, text messages, call logs or transcripts, or otherwise) between a departmental officer or employee and a federal DHS or ICE employee. In addition, I request all records related to these communications, including, but not limited to, any records indicating that the 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 SPR25/3279 Page 2 November 14, 2025 department was made aware of the communications, discussions of their content or implications, evaluations them for compliance with departmental or other city policies, identification or acknowledgement of any potential policy violations, and any internal responses, disciplinary actions, or follow-up measures resulting from these communications. [3] All records relating to incidents, if any, from January 20, 2025, to the day this request is responded to, in which an individual was taken from the department’s custody directly into ICE custody. For each incident, the records request includes, but is not limited to, booking and transfer records, communications with ICE or other federal agencies, internal documentation or discussion of the transfer, and internal notes, memos, or documentation referencing communication with DHS or ICE. The Department responded on August 26, 2025, and assigned reference number P251663-081225 to this request. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. Davidson petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3279, 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 The Department’s August 26th Response In its August 26, 2025 response, the Department stated, “[d]ue to the complexity of searching for the requested documents the City hereby identifies a reasonable timeframe to respond to your request of 25 business days from the date of receipt of your initial request, pursuant to G.L. c. 66 §10(b)(vi).”

Seah Levy SPR25/3279 Page 3 November 14, 2025 Timeframe for Providing Records The Department is advised that G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) provides, in pertinent part, that if the magnitude or difficulty of a request unduly burdens the other responsibilities of the agency or municipality such that the agency or municipality cannot provide records within 10 business days, the agency or municipality must inform the requestor in writing within 10 business days. With respect to the timeframe to produce responsive records, the written response shall: identify a reasonable timeframe in which the agency or municipality shall produce the public records sought; provided, that ... for a municipality the timeframe shall not exceed 25 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records; and provided further, that the requestor may voluntarily agree to a response date beyond the timeframes set forth herein. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Where Mr. Dankoff submitted his request on August 7, 2025, and the Department has not provided responsive records, nor cited an exemption for withholding records, I find the Department has not met its burden in responding to the request in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b). Consequently, the Department must provide an estimated date as to when it intends to complete the search and provide the responsive records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). To the extent possible, the Department must provide responsive records on a rolling basis. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Davidson 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. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Sophia Davidson Joshua Dankoff