Solomon, Richard v. Cambridge, City of - Law Department (SPR 20260782)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 19, 2026 SPR26/0782 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.” Previous Appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR25/2614 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 15, 2025) and SPR25/2858 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (October 15, 2025). In my October 15th determination, I ordered the City to clarify its claims under Exemption (f) for withholding the responsive records. The City provided a response on October 29, 2025, which included “a cost estimate and time extension[.]” On October 31, 2025, Mr. Solomon modified his request and stated, “I would . . . like to amend the requested time of the body-worn camera footage to 13:00 - 13:25 from the incident” and further noted that he would “bring a check to city hall[.]” Subsequently, the City provided responses on January 22, 2026, January 23, 2026, January 29, 2026, and February 4, 2026. Following correspondence from Mr. Solomon to the City on March 4, 2026, the City provided an additional response on March 5, 2026. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Mr. Solomon petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0782, 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 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 SPR26/0782 Page 2 March 19, 2026 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 City’s Responses In its January 22, 2026 response to Mr. Solomon’s modified October 31, 2026 request, the City indicated it had 20 responsive records in its possession, and provided nine responsive records with redactions under Exemptions (a), (c), and (f) of the Public Records Law. The City additionally stated the following: Previously, the City sent you a cost estimate response regarding this request. Payment was received, as well a [sic] modification to your request, “I would also like to amend the requested time of the body-worn camera footage to 13:00 – 13:25 from the incident, which is the same duration as before.” . . . At this time, the City is releasing these records on a rolling basis as each is completed . . . On this date, 1/22/2026, nine out of the twenty videos have been updated to your account. . . . Because providing the requested records took less than two hours of staff time, and the records a being produced electronically, pursuant to 950 CMR § 32.07(2)(m) there will be no charge for responding to this public records request. In its January 23, 2026 response, the City provided three additional responsive records and stated, “[t]hree (3) additional videos have been uploaded and made available at this time. Eight remain, and are being worked on currently.” In its January 29, 2026 response, the City provided five additional responsive records and stated, “[f]ive (5) additional videos have been uploaded and made available at this time. Three remain, and are being worked on currently.”

Seah Levy SPR26/0782 Page 3 March 19, 2026 In its February 4, 2026 response, the City provided the last three responsive records of the 20 identified in its initial January 22, 2026 response to Mr. Solomon’s modified October 31, 2025 request and stated, “[t]hree (3) final video files have been uploaded and made available at this time. . . . [T]he City considers this response complete.” In correspondence replying to the City dated March 4, 2026, Mr. Soloman objected to the City’s indication that it did not possess additional responsive records and stated the following: It appears that you have not made available all records responsive to my request. According to the Assistant City Solicitor in the City of Cambridge’s response dated September 29th . . . there were “38 police officers present at the scene.” In its March 5, 2026 response, the City stated as follows: The videos requested fell within the revised timeline that you provided. There are no additional videos to be provided. Additionally, the time to complete this request actually exceeded the $300 fees, but the City completed it without requesting further payment. I have been told that the check you provided was unsigned and will need to be signed before the City can cash it. Upon review, it is my understanding that the “check [Mr. Solomon] provided” concerns the check mentioned in his October 31, 2025 response to the City, in which Mr. Solomon modified his request and noted that he would “bring a check to city hall” for the payment of the fee in the City’s October 29, 2025 fee estimate. Current Appeal In his March 5, 2026 appeal petition, Mr. Solomon contends the City possesses additional responsive records and provides the following in support of his position: Attached is proof from the screenshots of the . . . body cameras between the time frame requested that shows they were at the incident. I am puzzled why the Cambridge Police Department and City of Cambridge Law Department would say there are no additional videos to be provided. [1] Axon_Body_4_Video_2025-08-03_1314_D01AC373N [2] Axon_Body_4_Video_2025-08-03_1219_D01AC641N [3] Axon_Body_4_Video_2025-08-03_1254_D01AC833N [4] Axon_Body_4_Video_2025-08-03_1309_D01AC488N [5] Axon_Body_4_Video_2025-08-03_1219_D01AC459N [6] Axon_Body_4_Video_2025-08-03_1314_D01AC373N

Seah Levy SPR26/0782 Page 4 March 19, 2026 These officers, along with every other officer of the 38 present at the scene according to the Assistant City Solicitor should presumably have footage that is responsive to my request. Unclear Appeal Upon review of the case file, including Mr. Solomon’s above correspondence to the City dated March 4, 2026, it is my understanding that the reference to the Assistant City Solicitor in Mr. Solomon’s appeal petition pertains to “the City of Cambridge’s response dated September 29th” to his initial August 27, 2025 request. Based on the foregoing, the basis of Mr. Solomon’s appeal is unclear. Mr. Solomon is advised that all petitions for appeal “shall specifically describe the nature of the requestor’s objections to the response or failure to timely respond.” 950 C.M.R. 32.08(l)(f). In this case, where the City indicated in its February 4th response to the modified request that it provided the ““[t]hree (3) final video files” and further stated in its March 5, 2026 response that, “[t]he videos requested fell within the revised timeline that [was] provided. There are no additional videos to be provided[,]” it is unclear whether Mr. Solomon’s appeal is based on timeframe provided in his initial August 27, 2025 request, or the timeframe provided in his modified October 31, 2025 request. In compliance with the Public Records Law, the Supervisor of Records may only issue determinations where a violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 has occurred. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a). Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. Should Mr. Solomon wish to appeal the City’s responses to his modified October 31, 2025 request, he may do so within ninety (90) days, describing his specific objections to the City’s responses. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Richard Solomon