Mass Accountability Network v. Salem, City of - Police Department (SPR 20253544)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 16, 2025 SPR25/3544 Ann Marie Greene Principal Clerk Support Services – Records Division Salem Police Department 95 Margin Street Salem MA 01970 Dear Ms. Greene: I have received the petition of Mass Accountability Network (requestor) appealing the response of the Salem Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 14, 2025, the requestor sought, “... police report and any information regarding an arrest or charges for [an identified individual] of Peabody. He was involved in a hit and run on Bridge Street on February 15th 2023. [An identified] Officer was primary[.] [Identified] Officers spoke to the suspect at the back parking lot of 14 Bridge Street, that parking lot is on Hubon Street. If I could get the incident number ...” The Department responded on December 1, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response. The requestor petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3544, 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 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

Ann Marie Greene SPR25/3544 Page 2 December 16, 2025 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. Current Appeal In the appeal, the requestor asserts, “I am reaching out to your office to appeal a response from the Salem police department for body camera footage. Although they claim investigatory exemption, they also claim in their explanation that the investigation is over. Therefore I believe that this footage should be released even though the case is still ‘open’. The exemption law only takes place when it can affect an investigation and not meant to withhold all public records until the case is over, which can be years later, such as this case.” The Department’s December 1st Response In its December 1, 2025 response, the Department produced a report with redactions pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. The Department further stated that “[n]o other information is being released at this time per Exemption F (Investigatory) as this case is still active as final disposition has not been reached on all charges.” The Department further asserted, “[t]he incident resulting in Commonwealth v. Matthew Green, Salem District Court, Docket No. [2336CR001588D] ... remains pending final disposition (reference SPD case CFS 23-5115). The case has been formally charged and is proceeding through the judicial system, but has not yet been resolved. The Department is denying your request for any other information besides the redacted Crash Report under two independent grounds:” [1] 950 CMR 32.08(2) – Subject Matter of Active Litigation The requested records relates directly to the subject of ongoing litigation. Under these regulations, a records custodian is not required to release materials that are currently the subject of dispute or a part of active court proceedings. [2] Exemption (f) – Prejudice to the Defendant’s Right to a Fair Trial. The Department also denies access pursuant to Exemption (f) of the Massachusetts Public Records Law (G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26(f) ... Active Litigation 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation.

Ann Marie Greene SPR25/3544 Page 3 December 16, 2025 In light of the pending matter, Commonwealth v. Matthew Green, Salem District Court Docket Number 2336CR001588D, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). I further decline to opine on the applicability of Exemption (f) to the requested records. It should be noted that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Mass Accountability Network