Anthony, Dave v. Suffolk County District Attorney's Office (SPR 20261278)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 16, 2026 SPR26/1278 Elizabeth Schwab Records Access Officer Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office One Bulfinch Place Boston, MA 02114 Dear Ms. Schwab: I have received the petition of Dave Anthony appealing the response of the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office (Office) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On March 24, 2026, Mr. Anthony requested: . . . all photographs documenting injuries [an identified individual] sustained during a workplace assault at Boston Medical Center on September 5, 2024, whether currently in the possession of the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office or obtained from Boston Medical Center in connection with this matter. These photographs are directly relevant to an active civil rights investigation, MCAD Docket No. 25BEM01494. The Office responded on April 6, 2026. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Anthony petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1278, 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

Elizabeth Schwab SPR26/1278 Page 2 April 16, 2026 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. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Anthony contends: First, the records at issue—photographs of physical injuries—are objective, contemporaneous documentation of observable conditions. They are not deliberative, advisory, or opinion-based materials. As such, the deliberative process exemption does not appear applicable. Second, the Office asserts that disclosure “could prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement” and may interfere with witness recollection. However, no specific explanation is provided as to how photographs depicting physical injuries—conditions that were visible, documented, and persisted over time— would impair witness testimony. The assertion is conclusory and does not articulate a particularized risk. . . . Given the above, I respectfully request that the Supervisor of Records review the denial and determine whether the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office has met its burden to justify withholding these records under Massachusetts public records law. The Office’s April 6th Response In its April 6, 2026 response, the Office withheld responsive records, citing Exemptions (d) and (f) of the Public Records Law and asserting, “[t]his case remains open (Commonwealth v. Algie Coley).” G. L. c. 4, § 7 (26) (d), (f). Pending 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.

Elizabeth Schwab SPR26/1278 Page 3 April 16, 2026 On April 8, 2026, the Office provided the docket numbers of the pending litigation. This office has reviewed the trial court’s docket and verified that the criminal litigation, relating to the records that are the subject of Mr. Anthony’s appeal, are active and ongoing in Boston Municipal Court. See Commonwealth v. Algie Coley, (Boston Municipal Court Docket No. 2401CR000310) and Commonwealth v. Algie Coley, (Boston Municipal Court Docket No. 2501CR000829). In light of the pending litigation, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Additionally, I decline to opine on the applicability of Exemptions (d) and (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: Dave Anthony