Solomon, Richard v. Cambridge, City of - Office of the City Clerk (SPR 20261068)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 7, 2026 SPR26/1068 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.” Subsequently, 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[.]” Previous Appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR25/2614 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 15, 2025); SPR25/2858 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (October 15, 2025) and SPR26/0782 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 19, 2026). In my March 19th determination, I found that the basis of Mr. Solomon’s appeal was unclear. Specifically, I found that it was unclear whether Mr. Solomon’s appeal was based on timeframe provided in his initial August 27, 2025 request, or the timeframe provided in his modified October 31, 2025 request. I further advised that Mr. Solomon may appeal the City’s responses to his modified October 31, 2025 request by describing his specific objections to the City’s responses. Subsequently, Mr. Solomon again petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/1068, 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 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 SPR26/1068 Page 2 April 7, 2026 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, 2025 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. Further, the City confirmed that it “is releasing these records on a rolling basis as each is completed[.]” 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.” 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. He stated, “[i]t appears that you have not made available all records responsive to my request. According to the Assistant City [Solicitor’s] . . . [September 29, 2025] . . . response [to Mr. Solomon’s initial August 27, 2025 request]. . . there were “38 police officers present at the scene.” In its March 5, 2026 response, the City advised, “the videos requested fell within the revised timeline that [was] provided” in the modified October 31, 2025 request. The City further stated that “[t]here are no additional videos to be provided.”

Seah Levy SPR26/1068 Page 3 April 7, 2026 Current Appeal In his March 24, 2026 appeal petition, Mr. Solomon clarifies that his appeal is based on the timeline provided in its modified October 31, 2026 request and further notes that “[a]ll [of his] correspondence with the City of Cambridge since October 31 has been for the 13:00 - 13:25 timeline.” Mr. Solomon goes on to reference the City’s above February 4th response, in which the City provided the “final video files” responsive to the modified request and noted, “[a]t this time, the City considers this response complete.” In submitting this appeal, Mr. Solomon provides seven screenshots from the responsive video files the City previously provided to him, which he contends is “proof . . . of [additional] body cameras between the 13:00 - 13:25 time frame requested on October 31[.]” Upon review, it is my understanding that the presence of one or more police officers is visible in three of the seven screenshots. Mr. Solomon further argues that “[the] officers [depicted in the screenshots], along with every other officer at the scene between 13:00 - 13:25 should presumably have footage that is responsive to my request.” No Duty to Create Records Under the Public Records Law, there is no obligation to create a record in response to a public records request. See G. L. c. 66, § 6A(d), 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). The duty to comply with requests for information extends only to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). In a telephone call between this office and a representative of the City on March 26, 2026, the City confirmed that all responsive records have been provided. Conclusion Where the City has confirmed that it does not possess additional records, and has no duty to create records responsive to the request, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Solomon is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, he is advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66 § 10(A)(c). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Richard Solomon