Case Title: Boston Globe Media Partners, LLC v. Chief Justice of the Trial Court

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-12681

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2019-09-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal 
revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 
volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical 
error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of 
Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 
Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-
1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 
 
SJC-12681 
 
BOSTON GLOBE MEDIA PARTNERS, LLC  vs.  CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE 
TRIAL COURT & another.1 
 
 
 
Suffolk.     May 7, 2019. - September 9, 2019. 
 
Present:  Gants, C.J., Lenk, Gaziano, Lowy, Budd, & Cypher, JJ. 
 
 
District Court, Clerk-Magistrate.  Practice, Criminal, Show 
cause hearing.  Probable Cause.  Public Records.  
Constitutional Law, Access to court proceedings.  Supreme 
Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. 
 
 
 
 
Civil action commenced in the Supreme Judicial Court for 
the county of Suffolk on October 11, 2018. 
 
 
The case was reported by Lowy, J. 
 
 
 
Jonathan M. Albano for the petitioner. 
 
Eric A. Haskell, Assistant Attorney General, for the 
respondents. 
 
Peter J. Haley for Association of Magistrates and Assistant 
Clerks of the Trial Court. 
 
The following submitted briefs for amici curiae: 
 
Ruth A. Bourquin, Matthew R. Segal, & Daniel L. McFadden 
for American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts & another. 
 
Esme Caramello for Harvard Defenders & others. 
 
Pauline Quirion for Greater Boston Legal Services & 
another. 
 
                                                          
 
 
1 Chief Justice of the District Court Department. 
2 
 
 
 
 
GANTS, C.J.  In Eagle-Tribune Publ. Co. v. Clerk-Magistrate 
of the Lawrence Div. of the Dist. Court Dep't, 448 Mass. 647, 
647-648 (2007) (Eagle-Tribune), this court held that the public 
has no right under the First Amendment to the United States 
Constitution to attend "show cause" hearings, during which 
individuals who have been accused of a crime but have not been 
arrested have the opportunity to be heard by a clerk-magistrate2 
before the issuance of a criminal complaint.  See G. L. c. 218, 
§ 35A.  Boston Globe Media Partners, LLC (the Globe), does not 
challenge that holding here.  Nor does the Globe argue that the 
records of all show cause hearings should be available for 
public inspection.  Instead, the Globe claims that the public 
has a common-law and constitutional right to access the records 
of a particular subset of show cause hearings:  those where a 
clerk-magistrate in the District Court or the Boston Municipal 
Court makes a finding of probable cause, but declines in the 
exercise of his or her discretion to issue a criminal complaint. 
 
We conclude that the requested show cause hearing records 
are not presumptively public under the common law, the First 
Amendment, or art. 16 of the Massachusetts Declaration of 
                                                          
 
2 For the sake of simplicity, we refer to the judicial 
officers who conduct show cause hearings as "clerk-magistrates."  
We acknowledge, however, that show cause hearings may be held 
before a judge, a clerk, an assistant clerk, a temporary clerk, 
or a temporary assistant clerk.  G. L. c. 218, § 35A. 
3 
 
 
Rights, as amended by art. 77 of the Amendments to the 
Constitution.  We therefore deny the Globe's request for 
declaratory relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.  Any member of the 
public, however, may request that the records of a particular 
show cause hearing be made publicly available, and a clerk-
magistrate or a judge shall grant such a request where the 
interests of justice so require. 
 
To promote transparency, accountability, and public 
confidence in our judiciary with respect to the conduct of show 
cause hearings in the absence of a presumptive right of public 
access, we exercise our superintendence authority to require 
that all show cause hearings be electronically recorded.  We 
also direct the Trial Court to establish uniform policies and 
procedures for the collection of information regarding show 
cause hearings.  This information can be used to develop 
compilations that could be made available to the public upon 
request and, at the discretion of the Trial Court, periodically 
published.  Such compilations will not, however, reveal the 
identities of the persons accused where no complaint issued.3 
                                                          
 
3 We acknowledge the amicus briefs submitted by the 
Association of Magistrates and Assistant Clerks of the Trial 
Court; by Greater Boston Legal Services and the Union of 
Minority Neighborhoods; by Harvard Defenders, Harvard Legal Aid 
Bureau, and City Life/Vida Urbana; and by the American Civil 
Liberties Union of Massachusetts and the Massachusetts Law 
Reform Institute. 
4 
 
 
Background.  1.  Initiating a criminal case.  Generally, 
the decision whether to charge an individual with a crime is 
made without the participation of the accused.  "Many criminal 
prosecutions begin with [a warrantless] arrest, followed by the 
filing of an application for a complaint against the arrested 
person by a law enforcement officer."4  Eagle-Tribune, 448 Mass. 
at 648-649.  Under these circumstances, the clerk-magistrate 
reviewing the application must authorize the criminal complaint 
if he or she determines that it is supported by probable cause.5  
See Mass. R. Crim. P. 3 (g) (2), as appearing in 442 Mass. 1502 
(2004); standard 2:04 of the District Court Standards of 
Judicial Practice:  The Complaint Procedure (2008) (Complaint 
Standards)6 ("magistrate should deny a complaint for a charged 
                                                          
 
 
4 Under Massachusetts common law, police officers have the 
authority to make warrantless arrests in certain "limited 
circumstances."  Lunn v. Commonwealth, 477 Mass. 517, 529 
(2017).  "[A]n officer has authority to arrest without a warrant 
any person whom he or she has probable cause to believe has 
committed a felony," as well as "any person who commits a 
misdemeanor, provided the misdemeanor involves an actual or 
imminent breach of the peace, is committed in the officer's 
presence, and is ongoing at the time of the arrest or only 
interrupted by the arrest."  Id.  Where an officer lacks 
authority to effect a warrantless arrest, he or she must seek a 
criminal complaint from a clerk-magistrate. 
 
 
5 Where an individual is arrested following the issuance of 
an arrest warrant, a criminal complaint or indictment will 
already have issued.  See Mass. R. Crim. P. 6 (b), 378 Mass. 852 
(1979); G. L. c. 276, § 22. 
 
 
6 The District Court Standards of Judicial Practice:  The 
Complaint Procedure (2008) (Complaint Standards), while "lacking 
5 
 
 
offense [where the accused has been arrested] only if he or she 
finds no probable cause or has not been provided with the facts 
necessary to determine whether there is probable cause for that 
offense"). 
An arrested individual, of course, has no right to be heard 
by a judicial officer before being arrested, and also has no 
right to dispute the existence of probable cause before the 
clerk-magistrate who decides whether to issue a criminal 
complaint.  See Eagle-Tribune, 448 Mass. at 655 (accused not 
                                                          
 
the force of law or rules," "are administrative regulations 
promulgated by the Chief Justice of the District Court that are 
treated as statements of desirable practice to be followed in 
the District Courts" (quotation, citation, and alteration 
omitted).  Eagle-Tribune Publ. Co. v. Clerk-Magistrate of the 
Lawrence Div. of the Dist. Court Dep't, 448 Mass. 647, 648 n.4 
(2007) (Eagle-Tribune).  This opinion does not seek to alter 
that characterization of the Complaint Standards, and should not 
be interpreted as giving them "the force of law or rules." 
 
 
Although the Boston Municipal Court is not subject to the 
Complaint Standards, see Matter of an Application for a Criminal 
Complaint, 477 Mass. 1010, 1011 n.3 (2017), the parties have 
pointed to no relevant differences between the way that the 
District Court and the Boston Municipal Court approach show 
cause hearings.  And, with the exception of audio recording 
practices, described infra, we have identified no such 
differences.  We therefore do not distinguish between the 
District Court and the Boston Municipal Court in this opinion.  
We recommend, however, that uniform complaint standards be 
adopted for use in both courts.  See id. ("The public might be 
better served if the [Boston Municipal Court] would formalize 
its practice in written standards"); Report of the Trial Court 
Working Group on Complaint Standards, at 4 (2019) (Working Group 
Report) ("Working Group recommends that the District Court and 
Boston Municipal Court departments follow the same standards," 
because "uniform statewide standards provide helpful guidance to 
both the court and the public"). 
6 
 
 
present during ex parte "complaint procedure for arrested 
individuals, in which a law enforcement officer swears to the 
underlying facts before a clerk-magistrate who must determine 
probable cause"); standard 2:02 of the Complaint Standards.  
Therefore, if the accused is arrested and a criminal complaint 
issues, he or she may challenge the validity of the complaint 
only by filing a motion to dismiss.  See Commonwealth v. 
DiBennadetto, 436 Mass. 310, 313 (2002) ("motion to dismiss 
. . . is the appropriate and only way to challenge a finding of 
probable cause" after issuance of complaint). 
An individual likewise has no right to be heard by a grand 
jury before indictment.  See Matter of a Grand Jury Subpoena, 
447 Mass. 88, 93 (2006) ("defendant does not have a right to 
testify before a grand jury").  If the individual is indicted, 
he or she may challenge the validity of the indictment only by 
filing a motion to dismiss it.  See Commonwealth v. Garrett, 473 
Mass. 257, 264 (2015) (challenge to sufficiency of indictment 
generally must be raised by motion to dismiss prior to trial). 
 
But where a person has not been arrested or indicted and 
where a law enforcement officer or private citizen7 applies for a 
                                                          
 
 
7 We use the term "private citizen" because it is the term 
commonly used to describe a private person who is not a law 
enforcement officer, prosecutor, or other public official.  By 
using the term, we do not mean to suggest that United States 
citizenship is a prerequisite for a private person to apply for 
7 
 
 
criminal complaint, the Legislature has granted the accused 
individual in many cases the right to be "heard personally or by 
counsel" at a show cause hearing to oppose the issuance of the 
complaint.  G. L. c. 218, § 35A.  Under § 35A, an accused's 
right to a show cause hearing depends on whether the alleged 
crime is a felony or a misdemeanor, whether the individual who 
files the application for a criminal complaint is a law 
enforcement officer or a private citizen, and whether there is 
an imminent threat of bodily injury, of the commission of a new 
crime, or of the accused's flight.8  
                                                          
 
a complaint; any person, whether citizen or noncitizen, 
documented or undocumented, may seek a criminal complaint. 
 
 
8 General Laws c. 218, § 35A, provides in relevant part: 
 
"If a complaint is received by a district court, or by a 
justice, associate justice or special justice thereof, or 
by a clerk, assistant clerk, temporary clerk or temporary 
assistant clerk thereof under [G. L. c. 218, § 32, 33, or 
35], as the case may be, the person against whom such 
complaint is made, if not under arrest for the offense for 
which the complaint is made, shall, in the case of a 
complaint for a misdemeanor or a complaint for a felony 
received from a law enforcement officer who so requests, 
and may, in the discretion of any said officers in the case 
of a complaint for a felony which is not received from a 
law enforcement officer, be given an opportunity to be 
heard personally or by counsel in opposition to the 
issuance of any process based on such complaint unless 
there is an imminent threat of bodily injury, of the 
commission of a crime, or of flight from the commonwealth 
by the person against whom such complaint is made.  The 
court or said officers referred to above shall consider the 
named defendant's criminal record and the records contained 
within the statewide domestic violence record keeping 
system maintained by the office of the commissioner of 
8 
 
 
 
Where the alleged crime is a misdemeanor, the accused 
"shall . . . be given an opportunity" to participate in a show 
cause hearing, regardless of whether the complainant is a law 
enforcement officer or a private citizen.  Id.  Thus, for 
example, where two parents get into a fist fight at a youth 
hockey game and one of the parents (or a law enforcement officer 
who observed the altercation) seeks to bring misdemeanor assault 
and battery charges against the other parent, the clerk-
magistrate must hold a show cause hearing. 
 
Where the alleged crime is a felony and the complainant is 
a law enforcement officer, a show cause hearing shall be held 
only if the law enforcement officer requests it.  G. L. c. 218, 
§ 35A.  See standard 3:08 & commentary of the Complaint 
Standards.  Using our example of an altercation at a youth 
hockey game, this means that if a dangerous weapon is used in 
the assault and battery and a police officer applies for a 
felony complaint against the perpetrator, no show cause hearing 
will be held unless the police officer requests such a hearing.  
                                                          
 
probation in determining whether an imminent threat of 
bodily injury exists.  Unless a citation as defined in 
[G. L. c. 90C, § 1,] has been issued, notice shall also be 
given of the manner in which he may be heard in opposition 
as provided herein.  The court, or said officer thereof, 
may upon consideration of the evidence, obtained by hearing 
or otherwise, cause process to be issued unless there is no 
probable cause to believe that the person who is the object 
of the complaint has committed the offense charged." 
9 
 
 
If the law enforcement officer chooses not to request a show 
cause hearing, the clerk-magistrate shall proceed as though the 
accused had been arrested and decide whether probable cause 
exists based only on information provided by the officer.  G. L. 
c. 218, § 35A.  See standard 3:08 & commentary of the Complaint 
Standards. 
 
Where the complainant seeking felony charges is not a law 
enforcement officer, the clerk-magistrate may exercise his or 
her discretion to hold a show cause hearing.  G. L. c. 218, 
§ 35A.  See standard 3:09 of the Complaint Standards.  The 
Complaint Standards encourage clerk-magistrates to schedule show 
cause hearings for felony charges sought by private complainants 
"unless there are public safety or other reasons for not doing 
so."9  Standard 3:09 of the Complaint Standards. 
 
Show cause hearings "bear[] little resemblance to a trial."  
Eagle-Tribune, 448 Mass. at 653.  The accused has a right to 
offer his or her version of events but no right to cross-examine 
witnesses, and the clerk-magistrate may consider evidence, 
including hearsay, that would not be admissible at trial.  Id.  
And although the accused may retain a private attorney to 
                                                          
 
 
9 Regardless of the crime alleged and the identity of the 
complainant, no show cause hearing is available where "there is 
an imminent threat of bodily injury, of the commission of a 
crime, or of flight from the commonwealth by the person against 
whom such complaint is made."  G. L. c. 218, § 35A. 
10 
 
 
represent him or her at the hearing, the accused has no right to 
appointed counsel if he or she is indigent.  See id.; G. L. 
c. 218, § 35A; Mass. R. Crim. P. 8, as amended, 397 Mass. 1226 
(1986) (right to counsel attaches when "defendant charged with a 
crime" initially appears in court). 
 
If the clerk-magistrate determines that there is not 
probable cause to believe that the accused committed the crime 
alleged, regardless of who applied for the complaint and whether 
the application alleges a felony or a misdemeanor, the clerk-
magistrate must decline to issue the complaint.  G. L. c. 218, 
§ 35A.  If the clerk-magistrate determines that there is 
probable cause, however, it matters whether a law enforcement 
officer or private citizen applied for the complaint, whether 
the application alleges a felony or a misdemeanor, and whether a 
prosecutor's office has communicated a decision to prosecute the 
case. 
 
Where a law enforcement officer applies for a felony 
complaint, a clerk-magistrate who finds probable cause must 
authorize the complaint unless a prosecutor's office opposes its 
issuance.  See standard 3:08 & commentary of the Complaint 
Standards.  Where a private citizen applies for a felony 
complaint, or where anyone applies for a misdemeanor complaint, 
a clerk-magistrate who finds probable cause must authorize the 
complaint if the prosecutor's office communicates to the clerk-
11 
 
 
magistrate its intention to prosecute the case if probable cause 
is found.  See Victory Distribs., Inc. v. Ayer Div. of the Dist. 
Court Dep't, 435 Mass. 136, 143 (2001) ("Should [a prosecutor] 
decide to prosecute, neither a judge . . . nor a clerk-
magistrate may bar the prosecution, as long as the complaint is 
legally valid"); standard 3:00 of the Complaint Standards ("If 
the Attorney General's office or the [d]istrict [a]ttorney's 
office has decided to prosecute, a magistrate must authorize the 
requested complaint if supported by probable cause").  "A 
magistrate may ordinarily assume that the [d]istrict 
[a]ttorney's office will prosecute a complaint supported by 
probable cause that is sought by police or other authorized law 
enforcement officials, but may also inquire in doubtful cases."10  
Standard 3.00 of the Complaint Standards. 
 
But where a private citizen applies for a felony or 
misdemeanor complaint and a prosecutor's office has not 
communicated a decision to prosecute the case, a clerk-
                                                          
 
 
10 We recognize that under standard 3:08 of the Complaint 
Standards, a clerk-magistrate need not assume that a prosecutor 
intends to prosecute every criminal complaint sought by a law 
enforcement officer.  Where a prosecutor's office has not 
communicated a decision to pursue a criminal complaint brought 
by a law enforcement officer and where the clerk-magistrate 
determines -- perhaps after discussing the matter with a 
prosecutor -- that prosecution is not likely despite the 
existence of probable cause, the clerk-magistrate may decline to 
authorize the complaint even though it was brought by a law 
enforcement officer. 
12 
 
 
magistrate may in the exercise of his or her discretion decline 
to issue a criminal complaint even where probable cause is 
found.  See G. L. c. 218, § 35A (clerk-magistrate "may . . . 
cause process to be issued unless there is no probable cause" 
[emphasis added]); Victory Distribs., Inc., 435 Mass. at 142.  
Returning to our youth hockey altercation example, where a 
clerk-magistrate finds probable cause to believe that the 
accused parent struck or pushed the complainant parent, and 
therefore committed a misdemeanor assault and battery, and where 
the prosecutor's office has not communicated an intent to 
prosecute the accused parent, the clerk-magistrate may decline 
to issue a criminal complaint and instead explore with the 
complainant and the accused ways to resolve their dispute 
outside the criminal justice system. 
 
As we explained in Eagle-Tribune, 448 Mass. at 650-651, 
apart from the legal function of the show cause hearing to 
determine whether there is probable cause, 
"'[t]he implicit purpose of the [§] 35A hearings is to 
enable the [clerk-magistrate] to screen a variety of minor 
criminal or potentially criminal matters out of the 
criminal justice system through a combination of 
counseling, discussion, or threat of prosecution -- 
techniques which might be described as characteristic, in a 
general way, of the process of mediation.'  Snyder, Crime 
and Community Mediation -- The Boston Experience:  A 
Preliminary Report on the Dorchester Urban Court Program, 
1978 Wis. L. Rev. 737, 746-747, quoted with approval in 
Gordon v. Fay, 382 Mass. 64, 69-70 (1980). . . .  Thus, 'a 
show cause hearing . . . will often be used by a clerk-
magistrate in an effort to bring about an informal 
13 
 
 
settlement of grievances, typically relating to minor 
matters involving "the frictions and altercations of daily 
life."'  [Commonwealth v. Clerk-Magistrate of the W. 
Roxbury Div. of the Dist. Court Dep't, 439 Mass. 352, 356 
(2003)], quoting Bradford v. Knights, 427 Mass. 748, 751 
(1998)." 
 
The records of these show cause hearings -- where a clerk-
magistrate finds probable cause but declines to issue a criminal 
complaint -- are what the Globe contends are presumptively 
public judicial records. 
 
Where a clerk-magistrate authorizes a criminal complaint, 
"the application, together with any record of the facts 
presented to the magistrate, including any recordings, becomes 
part of the criminal case file and is publicly available unless 
impounded by a judge."  Standard 5:02 of the Complaint 
Standards.  See Administrative Office of the District Court, A 
Guide to Public Access, Sealing & Expungement of District Court 
Records, at 12 (rev. Sept. 2013) (Guide to Public Access) 
("Applications, police reports and other materials submitted to 
a clerk or judge in support of, or in opposition to, a criminal 
complaint that was subsequently issued" included among publicly 
available documents). 
 
But where a clerk-magistrate declines to issue a criminal 
complaint, the application, together with any record of the 
facts presented to the magistrate, including any recordings, 
"shall be maintained separately from other records of such 
14 
 
 
court."  G. L. c. 218, § 35.  See standard 5:01 of the Complaint 
Standards ("If a complaint is denied, the application form and 
any attachments must be kept separate from any criminal 
records").  In contrast with case files, which must be retained 
for at least ten years before being destroyed, see S.J.C. Rule 
1:11, as appearing in 480 Mass. 1322 (2018), denied complaint 
applications and their accompanying records shall be destroyed 
"one year after the date such application was filed, unless [a 
judge] shall for good cause order that such application be 
retained on file for a further period of time."  G. L. c. 218, 
§ 35.  See standard 5:01 of the Complaint Standards ("If a 
complaint is denied, the application form and any attachments 
must be . . . destroyed after one year;" if show cause hearing 
was recorded, "the recording must be preserved for one year").11 
 
If the complainant seeks redetermination by a judge of the 
clerk-magistrate's decision to deny the issuance of a criminal 
complaint, the judge may examine the denied applications and the 
records associated with them.  See standard 3:22 of the 
Complaint Standards.  A request for redetermination is not 
formally an appeal, because there is no entitlement to review by 
a judge.  See id. ("If the magistrate denies a complaint, the 
                                                          
 
 
11 The destruction provisions of G. L. c. 218, § 35, do not 
apply to complaint applications made pursuant to G. L. c. 90, 
§ 20C, which concerns motor vehicle offenses. 
15 
 
 
complainant may not appeal the magistrate's determination, but 
may request a judge to redetermine the matter").  But it does 
provide a potential avenue of relief for an aggrieved 
complainant.12  Where a redetermination is requested, the judge 
has the discretion to "consider the application de novo" and 
hold a new show cause hearing, to review the factual information 
previously provided to the clerk-magistrate, or to deny 
redetermination, presumably because the complainant's 
allegations do not warrant further review.  Id.  If the judge 
decides to hold a new hearing, the complainant and the accused 
shall have a right to attend and present evidence.  If the judge 
denies redetermination or declines to issue a complaint after 
redetermination, the complainant has no right to further 
judicial review.  See Commonwealth v. Orbin O., 478 Mass. 759, 
765 (2018), quoting Bradford, 427 Mass. at 751 ("even where the 
Legislature has given a private party the opportunity to seek a 
criminal complaint, we have uniformly held that the denial of a 
complaint creates no judicially cognizable wrong"). 
                                                          
 
 
12 The Trial Court Working Group on Complaint Standards, 
described infra, recommends that individuals applying for a 
criminal complaint "be provided notice that they may seek 
redetermination of a denial of a complaint by a judge and that 
[they] may request the Attorney General or [d]istrict [a]ttorney 
to review the allegations for prosecution."  Working Group 
Report, at 7.  We endorse this recommendation. 
16 
 
 
 
2.  The Globe's records requests and petition pursuant to 
G. L. c. 211, § 3.  In 2017 and 2018, the Globe requested 
various data concerning show cause hearings held in the District 
Court and the Boston Municipal Court.  The Trial Court responded 
to these requests by providing the Globe with summary tables 
from the 2016 and 2017 court years.  These tables listed the 
number of show cause hearings scheduled in each of the divisions 
of the District Court Department and the Boston Municipal Court 
Department, the number of show cause hearings where probable 
cause was found and a criminal complaint issued, and the number 
of show cause hearings where probable cause was found and no 
criminal complaint issued.  According to this data, there were a 
total of 126,596 scheduled show cause hearings in 2016 and 2017.  
In 18,134 (or approximately fourteen percent) of these hearings, 
a clerk-magistrate or judge found probable cause that the 
accused had committed a crime, but denied the application for 
issuance of a criminal complaint. 
 
On January 8, 2018, the Globe requested the court records 
for those show cause hearings where a judicial officer declined 
to issue a criminal complaint after making a finding of probable 
cause.  The Trial Court denied this request on January 31, 
reasoning that until a criminal complaint has issued, a show 
cause hearing record "is not yet a public court record, because 
the court would be publicly disclosing allegations of wrongdoing 
17 
 
 
where no criminal process resulted."  According to the 
stipulated facts, the Trial Court's policy and practice "is that 
the public has no greater right of access to records of [s]how 
[c]ause [h]earings in which an application for a complaint is 
denied after a finding of probable cause is made than it has to 
records of such hearings in which no finding of probable cause 
is made."  See standard 5:02 of the Complaint Standards ("Denied 
applications, and any electronic record of the show cause 
hearing, are . . . unavailable to the public unless a magistrate 
or judge makes a determination that the legitimate interest of 
the public outweighs any privacy interests of the accused").  On 
February 2, the Globe asked the Trial Court to reconsider its 
response to the records request.  On March 6, the Trial Court 
declined to do so. 
 
On October 11, the Globe filed a petition pursuant to G. L. 
c. 211, § 3, seeking "review of the policy and practice . . . of 
denying the public a presumptive common law or constitutional 
right of access to the records of show cause hearings conducted 
pursuant to G. L. c. 218, § 35A[,] after a judicial officer 
makes a finding of probable cause but nevertheless declines to 
issue process or a criminal complaint."  A single justice of the 
county court reserved and reported the case for determination by 
the full court. 
18 
 
 
 
Discussion.  The Globe argues that the public has a 
presumptive right to access the requested records under the 
common law, the First Amendment, and art. 16.  We evaluate these 
claims in turn. 
 
1.  Common-law claim.  The Globe contends that the records 
of § 35A hearings resulting in a finding of probable cause but 
not the issuance of a criminal complaint are "judicial records," 
which under our common law are presumptively available to the 
public.  It is true, as set forth in G. L. c. 218, § 35, that 
these records are "filed" with the court, albeit "maintained 
separately from other records of such court."  In practice, we 
understand this to mean that denied applications for a criminal 
complaint and their accompanying records must be kept physically 
apart from the case files of criminal and civil cases.  See 
Victory Distribs., Inc., 435 Mass. at 141 (although clerk-
magistrates declined to issue complaints, they "received 
[complaint] applications for filing purposes").  And it is also 
true that, under our common law, judicial records are generally 
presumptively available to the public unless a statute or court 
order directs their impoundment.  See Commonwealth v. George W. 
Prescott Publ. Co., 463 Mass. 258, 262 (2012); Globe Newspaper 
Co., petitioner, 461 Mass. 113, 120 (2011).  So the issue we 
must confront is whether denied applications for criminal 
19 
 
 
complaints qualify as a type of judicial record that should be 
considered presumptively public under our common law. 
 
When this court has applied the common-law presumption of 
public access to judicial records, we have generally done so in 
response to a request for one of three types of records:  (1) 
records kept in the case files of criminal and civil cases, see, 
e.g., Commonwealth v. Pon, 469 Mass. 296, 311 (2014) (records of 
closed criminal proceedings resulting in dismissal or entry of 
nolle prosequi); Boston Herald, Inc. v. Sharpe, 432 Mass. 593, 
605-606 (2000) (Sharpe) (records of civil actions seeking abuse 
prevention orders under G. L. c. 209A); (2) search warrants, 
including the accompanying application and affidavit, after the 
warrant is issued and returned to the court, see, e.g., 
Newspapers of New England, Inc. v. Clerk-Magistrate of the Ware 
Div. of the Dist. Court Dep't, 403 Mass. 628, 631 (1988), cert. 
denied, 490 U.S. 1066 (1989); and (3) inquest reports and 
transcripts, see, e.g., Globe Newspaper Co., petitioner, 461 
Mass. at 120-123.  The records of show cause hearings not 
resulting in the issuance of a criminal complaint are 
fundamentally different from each of these three categories of 
records. 
 
By their very nature, the records sought by the Globe fall 
outside the first category of judicial records -- they cannot be 
located in a "case file" because they relate to allegations that 
20 
 
 
never resulted in a criminal case.  See Mass. R. Crim. P. 3 (a), 
as appearing in 442 Mass. 1502 (2004) ("criminal proceeding 
shall be commenced in the District Court by a complaint").  
Furthermore, these records are required by statute to be kept 
separately from case files.  G. L. c. 218, § 35. 
 
The Globe recognizes that the requested records are not 
associated with a criminal case, but contends that denied 
applications for a criminal complaint are akin to search warrant 
and inquest records, which are presumptively public in the 
circumstances described below regardless of whether the 
investigation yields a criminal complaint.  We disagree. 
 
Search warrant records, as a matter of both common law and 
statute, "are judicial records to which the public's presumptive 
right of access applies once the warrant has been returned."  
George W. Prescott Publ. Co., 463 Mass. at 263.  See G. L. 
c. 276, § 2B ("Upon the return of said [search] warrant, the 
affidavit shall be attached to it and shall be filed therewith, 
and it shall not be a public document until the warrant is 
returned").  Search warrant records thus become presumptively 
available to the public only when the search warrant is 
returned, which means of course that the application for a 
search warrant was allowed.  We know of no case, and none has 
been cited by any party or amicus, that declares that denied 
applications for search warrants, along with the accompanying 
21 
 
 
affidavits, are judicial records made presumptively available to 
the public. 
 
And inquest reports, which become presumptively public once 
a prosecutor "files a certificate asserting that the case will 
not be presented to a grand jury, or files notice that a grand 
jury has returned an indictment or a no bill," are also 
distinguishable from applications for a criminal complaint that 
are denied at a show cause hearing.  Globe Newspaper Co., 
petitioner, 461 Mass. at 118.  See id. at 124.  Inquests are 
"investigative, not accusatory or adjudicatory."  Id. at 115.  
Moreover, inquests always involve a matter of intense public 
interest:  "a person has been killed in circumstances 
sufficiently suspicious as to warrant the Attorney General or a 
district attorney to require the death be investigated by a 
judge in an evidentiary hearing."13  Id. at 122.  This is in 
                                                          
 
 
13 "Under G. L. c. 38, § 8, the Attorney General or a 
district attorney may direct that an inquest into the death of 
any person be held before a judge in the District Court."  Globe 
Newspaper Co., petitioner, 461 Mass. 113, 115 (2011).  An 
inquest is not a trial, and is not "part of any criminal 
proceedings which may ensue."  Id., quoting Kennedy v. Justice 
of the Dist. Court of Dukes County, 356 Mass. 367, 374 (1969).  
After the inquest is conducted, the judge must issue a written 
report that, along with a transcript, is filed in the Superior 
Court for the county where the inquest was held.  Globe 
Newspaper Co., petitioner, supra at 116.  This report "includes 
the name of the deceased (if known), 'when, where, and by what 
means the person met his [or her] death, . . . all material 
circumstances attending the death, and the name, if known, of 
any person whose unlawful act or negligence appears to have 
contributed' to the death."  Id., quoting G. L. c. 38, § 10. 
22 
 
 
stark contrast to show cause hearings, which often concern 
"minor matters involving the frictions and altercations of daily 
life" (quotation and citation omitted).  Eagle-Tribune, 448 
Mass. at 650. 
 
Although show cause hearing records are distinguishable 
from the records to which we have previously applied the 
presumption of public access, the Globe claims that the 
presumption applies to all records filed with the court and 
therefore, in effect, that we should include denied applications 
for criminal complaints where probable cause is found as a 
fourth category of presumptively public judicial records.  The 
Globe's argument is not without merit.  We have long recognized 
that public access to court records promotes transparency, 
accountability, and public confidence in our judiciary.  "[I]t 
is of the highest moment that those who administer justice 
should always act under the sense of public responsibility, and 
that every citizen should be able to satisfy himself with his 
own eyes as to the mode in which a public duty is performed."  
George W. Prescott Publ. Co., 463 Mass. at 262-263, quoting 
Cowley v. Pulsifer, 137 Mass. 392, 394 (1884).  The presumption 
of access serves this goal because it "facilitates the citizen's 
desire to keep a watchful eye on the workings of public 
agencies, permits the media to publish information concerning 
the operation of government, . . . and supports the public's 
23 
 
 
right to know whether public servants are carrying out their 
duties in an efficient and law-abiding manner" (quotations and 
citations omitted).  Sharpe, 432 Mass. at 606.  "Access to 
otherwise unrestricted records of judicial proceedings may 
therefore be viewed as an essential component of the general 
principle of publicity:  the public often would not have a full 
understanding of the proceeding and therefore would not always 
be in a position to serve as an effective check on the system if 
it were denied access to judicial records" (quotations and 
citation omitted).  Id.  See Commonwealth v. Winfield, 464 Mass. 
672, 678 (2013), quoting Sharpe, supra ("presumption of public 
access to judicial records allows the public and the media to 
develop a full understanding of a judicial proceeding so that 
they may 'keep a watchful eye' on the judicial system"). 
 
And we recognize, based in part on data that the Trial 
Court furnished to the Globe regarding show cause hearings held 
in the various divisions of the District Court and the Boston 
Municipal Court, that show cause hearings may warrant a 
"watchful eye" from the public and journalists, and that the 
public and the judicial system may benefit from a better 
understanding of the justice that is provided at such hearings.  
The data appears to reveal wide disparities among courts in the 
percentage of show cause hearings that resulted in a finding of 
probable cause in 2017:  in the Boston Municipal Court, the 
24 
 
 
percentage ranged from a high of 85.2 percent in the Central 
Division to a low of 42.2 percent in the Dorchester Division; in 
the District Court, it ranged from a high of 92.2 percent in the 
East Brookfield Division to a low of 21.6 percent in the Chelsea 
Division.  Comparable disparities existed that year in the 
percentage of show cause hearings where probable cause was found 
but no criminal complaint issued:  in the Boston Municipal 
Court, the percentage ranged from a high of 21.5 percent in the 
Brighton Division to a low of 4.2 percent in the Charlestown 
Division; in the District Court, it ranged from a high of 43.9 
percent in the Gloucester Division to a low of 0.2 percent in 
the Chelsea Division.14 
 
We do not suggest that there is a "correct" percentage of 
show cause hearings that should result in a finding of probable 
cause or in the issuance of a criminal complaint, or even a 
"correct range" of percentages.  We likewise do not suggest that 
a high percentage is better than a low percentage, or vice-
versa.  But the magnitude of the apparent differences among 
                                                          
 
 
14 In providing this data to Boston Globe Media Partners, 
LLC (the Globe), the Trial Court noted that it reflected the 
resolution of show cause hearings "as reported through 
MassCourts."  The Trial Court added, "While all courts use 
MassCourts to schedule a probable cause hearing, not all courts 
or court personnel . . . record a finding or denial of probable 
cause or dismissal on every application for criminal complaint 
in MassCourts. . . . The accurate record reflecting exactly what 
has occurred is the paper docket." 
25 
 
 
courts suggests that different clerk's offices might have very 
different philosophies regarding the adjudication of these 
hearings, and that the public and the courts could benefit from 
more information concerning these disparities and their 
potential causes. 
 
But we also recognize that show cause hearings are 
fundamentally different from the sorts of proceedings and 
records that have warranted a presumption of publicity.  In 
fact, they are most closely analogous to grand jury proceedings, 
which have long been shielded from the public eye.  As with show 
cause hearings, grand jury proceedings "precede the formal 
initiation of criminal prosecution and employ the same 'probable 
cause to arrest' standard."  Eagle-Tribune, 448 Mass. at 655.  
See commentary to standard 1:00 of the Complaint Standards 
("complaint procedure is a judicial process in which clerks and 
judges of the District Court serve a grand jury-type function to 
determine whether a person is to be charged as a defendant in a 
criminal case" [emphasis added]).  And there is no common-law 
right of public access to the records of grand jury proceedings, 
even where they are filed with the court.15  See WBZ-TV4 v. 
                                                          
 
 
15 In Massachusetts, grand jury materials are also protected 
from public inspection by statute.  See G. L. c. 268, § 13D (e) 
("Any grand jury transcript or document citing or describing 
grand jury testimony filed with any court shall be filed and 
maintained under seal, unless the paper is filed in a criminal 
prosecution for perjury before a grand jury"). 
26 
 
 
District Attorney for the Suffolk Dist., 408 Mass. 595, 599 
(1990) ("requirement that grand jury proceedings remain secret 
is deeply rooted in the common law of the Commonwealth"); Globe 
Newspaper Co. v. Commonwealth, 407 Mass. 879, 887 (1990) (public 
"does not have a constitutional or any other right of access" to 
grand jury proceedings).  See also In re Motions of Dow Jones & 
Co., 142 F.3d 496, 504 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 820 
(1998) ("Although some have identified a common law tradition of 
public access to criminal trials, this never extended to 
preindictment, pretrial proceedings involving a grand jury"). 
 
A denied application for a criminal complaint following a 
show cause hearing is comparable to a no bill issued by a grand 
jury.  Although no bills are submitted to a judge and filed with 
the court, see Mass. R. Crim. P. 5 (f), as appearing in 442 
Mass. 1505 (2004), they are not presumptively public.  See G. L. 
c. 276, § 100C ("In any criminal case wherein . . . a no bill 
has been returned by the grand jury," clerk of court where 
proceeding occurred or was initiated shall "seal the records of 
the proceedings in their files"); Guide to Public Access, at 17 
("Cases sealed because of a 'no bill'" not publicly available).  
Indeed, if a no bill were deemed a judicial record and made 
presumptively available to the public, and if the grand jury 
transcript and exhibits were made available with it, the 
resulting publicity would undermine one of the important 
27 
 
 
purposes served by grand jury secrecy -- "protection of 
individuals from notoriety and disgrace."  See Matter of a John 
Doe Grand Jury Investigation, 415 Mass. 727, 729 (1993). 
 
Similarly, if applications for criminal complaints were 
deemed judicial records presumptively available to the public, 
anyone would be able to access records revealing that an 
individual had been accused in a show cause hearing where no 
criminal complaint issued.  This individual could then face 
serious collateral consequences, which would be contrary to the 
purpose of show cause hearings:  to protect and benefit the 
accused, and to "screen a variety of minor criminal or 
potentially criminal matters out of the criminal justice system" 
(citation omitted).  See Eagle-Tribune, 448 Mass. at 650. 
 
Although the Globe seeks the requested records for 
journalistic purposes, we may not discriminate among requesters 
if the information sought is publicly available as a court 
record.  See rule 2(b) of the Uniform Rules on Public Access to 
Court Records, Trial Court Rule XIV (2016) ("Any member of the 
public may submit to the [c]lerk at a courthouse a request to 
access a court record," and "shall not be required to disclose 
the reason for the request").  If past is prologue, there will 
be approximately 9,000 show cause hearings per year in 
Massachusetts where probable cause is found but no criminal 
complaint issues.  Under the criminal offender record 
28 
 
 
information (CORI) statutory scheme, these records would not be 
available to any landlord or employer because no complaint 
issued.  See G. L. c. 6, § 167 (CORI "shall be restricted to 
information recorded in criminal proceedings that are not 
dismissed before arraignment"); 803 Code Mass. Regs. § 2.05 
(2017).  But if we were to hold that these records are publicly 
available under our common law, landlords, employers, and others 
would be able to access information contained in the records of 
show cause hearings that resulted in a finding of probable cause 
(including the name of the accused and the alleged criminal 
offense) and use it in making housing, employment, and other 
important decisions affecting the lives of accused individuals, 
even though no criminal complaint ever issued. 
 
This court has previously recognized that an individual's 
criminal record can have "long-term collateral consequences" for 
that individual when it is accessible by landlords and 
employers.  Pon, 469 Mass. at 315.  See id. ("there is 
persuasive evidence that employers and housing authorities 
consider criminal history in making decisions"); id. at 315-316 
("judges may take judicial notice that the existence of a 
criminal record, regardless of what it contains, can present 
barriers to housing and employment opportunities"); Globe 
Newspaper Co. v. District Attorney for the Middle Dist., 439 
Mass. 374, 384 (2003) ("ready access to a defendant's prior 
29 
 
 
criminal record might frustrate a defendant's access to 
employment . . . [and] housing"). 
 
There is no reason to believe that landlords and employers 
would treat a clerk-magistrate's recorded finding of probable 
cause -- even when it does not result in a criminal complaint 
and therefore does not result in prosecution or a criminal 
record -- significantly differently from a criminal record.  A 
finding of probable cause, after all, is a judicial 
determination that there was sufficient evidence of criminality 
to launch a criminal case.  And in the course of a show cause 
hearing, accused individuals seeking to compromise and resolve 
minor disputes may make concessions or admissions that they 
would not make in the context of a criminal trial.  For 
employers and landlords, who may be risk-averse and often have 
no shortage of qualified applicants, a finding of probable cause 
-- particularly when it is accompanied by various recorded 
admissions -- might be reason enough to pass over an otherwise 
qualified prospective employee or tenant. 
 
And because there is no opportunity to challenge a finding 
of probable cause where a criminal complaint does not issue, 
there would be no simple way for accused individuals to 
demonstrate to employers and landlords that they were innocent 
of the claims against them.  In this regard, the Globe's request 
targets the very individuals who would be most prejudiced by 
30 
 
 
public access to the records of their show cause hearings -- 
those whose hearings resulted in a finding of probable cause, 
but who had no opportunity to challenge the evidence at trial.  
Thus, if members of the public were permitted to learn of 
probable cause determinations even where they did not result in 
a criminal complaint, show cause hearings would transform from 
an opportunity to effect "informal settlement of grievances" 
(citation omitted) with "minimal harm to the accused's 
reputation," Eagle-Tribune, 448 Mass. at 650, 656, to a forum 
where the accused suffers the risk of collateral consequences in 
housing and employment even when no criminal complaint is 
brought against him or her.  The threat of collateral 
consequences would inevitably increase the stakes at such a 
hearing and discourage the candor that could lead to a 
noncriminal resolution of the dispute. 
 
The Globe contends that concerns about the collateral 
consequences arising from release of the requested records can 
be adequately addressed through the existing impoundment 
procedure, which allows presumptively public judicial records to 
be removed from public view by court order.16  See rule 1(a) of 
                                                          
 
 
16 "'Impoundment' shall mean the act of keeping some or all 
of the case record separate and unavailable for public 
inspection.  Impounded records are not accessible to anyone 
other than the court, clerk, authorized court personnel, 
attorneys of record, and the parties to the case, unless 
otherwise ordered. . . .  'Impounded' information includes 
31 
 
 
the Uniform Rules on Impoundment Procedure, Trial Court Rule 
VIII (2015).  We disagree. 
 
Where records are presumptively public, a court generally 
"may enter an order of impoundment for good cause shown and in 
accordance with applicable law only after a hearing," during 
which "the court shall consider all relevant factors, including, 
but not limited to, (i) the nature of the parties and the 
controversy, (ii) the type of information and the privacy 
interests involved, (iii) the extent of community interest, (iv) 
constitutional rights, and (v) the reason(s) for the request."  
Rule 7(a)-(b) of the Uniform Rules on Impoundment Procedure.  If 
the court finds good cause to protect the relevant documents 
from public view, it may enter an order of impoundment, which 
shall be tailored in scope "so that it does not exceed the need 
for impoundment."  Rule 8(a), (c) of the Uniform Rules on 
Impoundment Procedure.  The requirements of impoundment are 
properly demanding, as "impoundment is always the exception to 
the rule, and the power to deny public access to judicial 
records is to be strictly construed in favor of the general 
                                                          
 
material that a statute, court rule, standing order, case law, 
or court order designates must be withheld as 'impounded,' 
'withheld from public inspection,' 'not available for public 
inspection,' 'segregated,' or 'confidential,' though these terms 
are not exhaustive."  Rule 1(b)(9) of the Uniform Rules on 
Impoundment Procedure, Trial Court Rule VIII (2015). 
32 
 
 
principle of publicity" (quotation and citation omitted).  
Republican Co. v. Appeals Court, 442 Mass. 218, 223 (2004). 
 
We conclude that it would be unduly burdensome to accused 
individuals, and out of balance with the public interest, to 
require such individuals to move for impoundment where a § 35A 
hearing results in a finding of probable cause but not the 
issuance of a criminal complaint.  Many accused individuals may 
be unaware of their right to move for impoundment, and reluctant 
to navigate the process of filing a motion, attending a hearing, 
and arguing good cause.  And these individuals, unlike those who 
are charged with a crime, would have no right to the assistance 
of an attorney who could advise them, when appropriate, on the 
need for impoundment and the procedure for obtaining it.  See 
Mass. R. Crim. P. 8 (right to counsel attaches when "defendant 
charged with a crime" initially appears in court); commentary to 
standard 3:17 of the Complaint Standards (accused persons are 
often not represented by counsel at show cause hearings).  
Practically speaking, this means that few accused individuals 
would be savvy enough to move for impoundment to protect the 
records of their hearings from public view.  And, for those 
savvy enough to move to impound, the justification for 
impoundment would generally be the risk of collateral 
consequences arising from the probable cause finding, an 
argument that would be common to virtually all who are similarly 
33 
 
 
situated.  The opportunity to move for impoundment, thus, is an 
inadequate solution to the significant problems that could arise 
were we to conclude that the presumption of publicity applies to 
the records of show cause hearings not resulting in the issuance 
of a criminal complaint.  We therefore hold that there is no 
common-law presumption of public access to such records. 
 
This conclusion, we believe, is consistent with the 
Legislature's decision to require that the records of denied 
criminal complaints -- regardless of whether they resulted in a 
finding of probable cause -- be maintained separately from other 
court records.  G. L. c. 218, § 35.  To be sure, if we had 
concluded that these records enjoy a presumption of public 
access under our common law, we would not find this legislative 
directive to be sufficiently clear as to reflect an intent to 
modify the common law.  See Globe Newspaper Co., petitioner, 461 
Mass. at 118 ("we do not interpret a statute to modify or 
abrogate an area traditionally guided by the common law, such as 
public access to judicial records, unless the intent to do so is 
clear").  But because we conclude that there is no common-law 
presumption of public access to these records, clear intent is 
not required to infer that the Legislature wanted these records 
to be kept separately from case files not only to facilitate 
34 
 
 
their annual destruction, but also to enable them to be treated 
differently from case files with respect to public access.17 
 
2.  Constitutional claims.  Having determined that there is 
no presumptive right of access to the records of show cause 
hearings where no complaint issues under the common law, we now 
address whether there is such a presumptive right under either 
the First Amendment or art. 16. 
 
a.  First Amendment.  The First Amendment "confers a 
qualified right of public access to certain judicial 
proceedings," and the media's right of access "derives entirely 
from the public's right of access."  Eagle-Tribune, 448 Mass. at 
651 & n.11, quoting Boston Herald, Inc. v. Superior Court Dep't 
of the Trial Court, 421 Mass. 502, 505 (1995).  The Globe, 
therefore, has "neither a greater nor a lesser right . . . than 
                                                          
 
 
17 We note that where an individual is arrested without a 
warrant and a judicial officer determines that there is not 
probable cause to detain that individual, "[t]he order 
[releasing the individual from custody] and a written 
determination of the judicial officer shall be filed in the 
District Court having jurisdiction over the location of the 
arrest, together with all the written information submitted by 
the police.  These documents shall be filed separately from the 
records of criminal and delinquency cases, but shall be public 
records."  Mass. R. Crim. P. 3.1 (f), 442 Mass. 1503 (2004).  
See Uniform Rule for Probable Cause Determinations for Persons 
Arrested Without a Warrant, Trial Court Rule XI(e)(3) (1994).  
Such records -- which implicate a significant public interest in 
learning about warrantless arrests that are not supported by 
probable cause -- are distinguishable from the records of show 
cause hearings, which take place only where the accused 
individual has not been arrested. 
35 
 
 
any other member of the public" under the First Amendment to 
attend a judicial proceeding and to review the records of that 
proceeding.  Boston Herald, Inc., supra. 
 
In order for the First Amendment right to attach, "the 
proceeding must satisfy a two-part test of 'experience' and 
'logic':  (1) the type of proceeding must have a historic 
tradition of openness, and (2) public access must 'play[] a 
significant positive role in the functioning of the particular 
process in question.'"  Eagle-Tribune, 448 Mass. at 651-652, 
quoting Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 8 
(1986).  In Eagle-Tribune, supra at 652-656, we concluded that 
§ 35A hearings meet neither the experience nor the logic test, 
and therefore held that there is no First Amendment right to 
attend them. 
 
Show cause hearings "fail the 'experience' test because 
there is no tradition of public access to this type of 
proceeding," which is unlike a trial or a probable cause hearing 
and has always been "presumptively private and as informal as 
circumstances will permit" (citation and alterations omitted).  
Id. at 652-655.  And they fail the "logic" test "because public 
access would not significantly aid" the functioning of a 
proceeding held to protect and benefit the accused and to 
"screen out baseless complaints with minimal harm to the 
accused's reputation."  Id. at 656.  To the contrary, these 
36 
 
 
goals would only be "frustrated" by public access.  Id.  As 
earlier noted, the Globe does not ask us to revisit this 
holding. 
 
We conclude that our First Amendment analysis concerning 
the right to attend a show cause hearing is equally applicable 
to the right to view the records of a show cause hearing.  See 
Newspapers of New England, Inc., 403 Mass. at 635 (no First 
Amendment right of public access to document that "has no 
integral relationship with any particular pretrial proceeding to 
which the public enjoys a First Amendment right of access"); 
Globe Newspaper Co. v. Pokaski, 868 F.2d 497, 509 (1st Cir. 
1989) ("First Amendment attaches only to those records connected 
with proceedings about which the public has a right to know"; 
because "public has no right to attend grand jury proceedings," 
it has "no right to grand jury records").  We therefore hold 
that the public has no First Amendment right to view the records 
of show cause hearings that did not result in the issuance of a 
criminal complaint. 
 
b.  Art. 16.  The Globe argues that because the press 
clause of art. 16 predates the enactment of the First Amendment, 
its construction should not be limited to that of its Federal 
37 
 
 
counterpart.18  Instead, the Globe contends, we should interpret 
art. 16 to support a State constitutional right of access to the 
requested records even if there is no such Federal 
constitutional right.  We have previously declined to extend the 
reach of art. 16 beyond that of the First Amendment in the 
context of show cause hearings, and we see no reason to revisit 
that declination.  See Eagle-Tribune, 448 Mass. at 651 n.10, 
quoting Opinions of the Justices, 387 Mass. 1201, 1202 (1982) 
("the criteria which have been established by the United States 
Supreme Court for judging claims arising under the First 
Amendment . . . are equally appropriate to claims brought under 
cognate provisions of the Massachusetts Constitution").  Because 
we conclude that there is no First Amendment right to access the 
requested records, we likewise conclude that there is no right 
to do so under art. 16. 
 
3.  Requests for specific show cause hearing records.  Our 
conclusion that the Globe has no common-law or constitutional 
presumptive right to access all of the requested records does 
not necessarily mean that it has no right to access some of 
                                                          
 
 
18 Art. 16 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, as 
amended by art. 77 of the Amendments to the Constitution, 
provides: 
 
"The liberty of the press is essential to the security of 
freedom in a state:  it ought not, therefore, to be 
restrained in this commonwealth.  The right of free speech 
shall not be abridged." 
38 
 
 
them.  It merely means that if the Globe (or any other person or 
entity) wishes to see the records of a particular show cause 
hearing or a particular subset of show cause hearings, it will 
have to specifically request those records.19  In considering 
such requests, the burden will not be on the Trial Court or the 
accused "to overcome the presumption of public access by showing 
good cause to impound" these records.  Winfield, 464 Mass. at 
681.  "Rather, the burden rests with the proponent of the motion 
to show why the interests of justice would be served by making a 
document that is not presumptively public available to the 
public in this particular case."  Id. 
 
In Eagle-Tribune, 448 Mass. at 656, we recognized, as the 
District Court does through its standards, that although show 
cause hearings are presumptively closed to the public, there may 
be circumstances where a show cause hearing should be open to 
the public.  See standard 3:15 of the Complaint Standards (show 
cause hearings may be opened to public where "the application is 
one of special public significance and the magistrate concludes 
that legitimate public interests outweigh the accused's right of 
privacy").  We recognize here, as the District Court does 
                                                          
 
 
19 We note that on August 3, 2018, the Globe did request the 
records of a particular show cause hearing from the clerk-
magistrate of the Dorchester Division of the Boston Municipal 
Court.  The court declined to provide the requested records, and 
the Globe does not challenge that particular decision here. 
39 
 
 
through its standards, that there may be circumstances where the 
records of show cause hearings in which no complaint issues, 
although presumptively protected from public view, should be 
made available to the public.  See standard 5:02 of the 
Complaint Standards (when request to access records of show 
cause hearings is made, "the appropriate considerations are 
similar to those in determining whether to permit the public to 
attend a show cause hearing"). 
 
In considering individual records requests, the clerk-
magistrate should balance the interests of transparency, 
accountability, and public confidence that might be served by 
making the requested records public against the risk that 
disclosure would unfairly result in adverse collateral 
consequences to the accused.  As we noted in Eagle-Tribune, 456 
Mass. at 656, "[w]here an incident has already attracted public 
attention prior to a show cause hearing, the interest in 
shielding the participants from publicity is necessarily 
diminished, while the public's legitimate interest in access is 
correspondingly stronger."  Similarly, where the accused is a 
public official, the interests of transparency, accountability, 
and public confidence are at their apex if the conduct at issue 
occurred in the performance of the official's professional 
duties or materially bears on the official's ability to perform 
those duties honestly or capably.  See Sharpe, 432 Mass. at 606, 
40 
 
 
quoting George W. Prescott Publ. Co. v. Register of Probate for 
Norfolk County, 395 Mass. 274, 279 (1985) (public has "right to 
know 'whether public servants are carrying out their duties in 
an efficient and law-abiding manner'"); George W. Prescott Publ. 
Co., supra at 278 ("public official has a significantly 
diminished privacy interest with respect to information relevant 
to the conduct of his [or her] office"). 
 
We endorse the recommendation of the Trial Court Working 
Group on Complaint Standards, which was established in 2018 "to 
examine the processes related to the initiation of criminal 
proceedings of a person who has not been arrested pursuant to 
G. L. c. 218, § 35A," that the Complaint Standards be revised to 
identify "'best practices' for determining whether to open a 
hearing to the public or to make records of a hearing available 
to the public."  Report of the Trial Court Working Group on 
Complaint Standards, at 1, 8 (2019) (Working Group Report).20 
 
4.  Audio-recording requirement.  We recognize that, 
although the records of a particular show cause hearing can be 
                                                          
 
 
20 Where a clerk-magistrate denies a records request, the 
requester may bring that denial to a judge for redetermination. 
To facilitate this review and to promote accountability, "we 
encourage clerk-magistrates to make a written record of the 
reason for their decision" regarding public access in all cases 
where a request for show cause hearing records is made.  See 
Eagle-Tribune, 448 Mass. at 657 n.17.  In extraordinary 
circumstances, relief from a clerk-magistrate's or judge's 
decision not to release requested show cause hearing records may 
be sought from a single justice of this court.  See id. at 657. 
41 
 
 
made available on request where the interests of justice so 
require, the interests of transparency, accountability, and 
public confidence cannot adequately be served if there is no 
audio recording of the hearing and therefore no way to ascertain 
all of the information that was presented to the clerk-
magistrate at that hearing.  And without an audio recording, a 
judge who is asked to redetermine a clerk-magistrate's decision 
to decline to issue a complaint after a show cause hearing and 
who wants to ensure that he or she knows all of the information 
presented to the clerk-magistrate would need to order a new 
hearing and bring back to court all those who attended the 
initial show cause hearing. 
 
Moreover, if allegations were to surface that a clerk-
magistrate acted inappropriately during a show cause hearing, 
such as by favoring a certain attorney, or by acting differently 
based on the race, gender, nationality, or citizenship of a 
litigant, or by acting abusively toward a litigant or attorney, 
an electronic recording would be the best evidence as to whether 
such misconduct occurred (and also the best means for a clerk-
magistrate to refute an unfair allegation).  Indeed, without 
electronic recording, there is little that the Trial Court 
reasonably can do to hold clerk-magistrates accountable for the 
manner in which they conduct such hearings. 
42 
 
 
 
The Complaint Standards already declare that "[i]t is good 
practice for all show cause hearings to be electronically 
recorded, subject to the availability of appropriate recording 
devices."  Standard 3:16 of the Complaint Standards.  The 
commentary to this standard uses even more forceful language, 
declaring that "[i]t is strongly recommended that a show cause 
hearing conducted by a magistrate be electronically recorded."  
And where a judge conducts a show cause hearing, it must be 
electronically recorded.  See rule 211(A)(1) of the Special 
Rules of the District Courts (1988); commentary to standard 3:16 
of the Complaint Standards.  Yet, according to the Working Group 
Report, only approximately one-third of the District Court's 
sixty-two divisions electronically record show cause hearings 
conducted by a clerk-magistrate without a request from the 
accused or complainant.  Working Group Report, at 9.  And none 
of the divisions of the Boston Municipal Court records such 
hearings absent a request.  Id. at 9-10. 
 
We exercise our superintendence authority over all trial 
courts "for the furtherance of justice" and "the improvement of 
the administration of such courts" to direct the District Court 
and the Boston Municipal Court to convert the "good practice" of 
recording show cause hearings into a required practice.  G. L. 
c. 211, § 3.  This directive is in keeping with our requirement 
that grand jury proceedings, which are similar in many ways to 
43 
 
 
show cause hearings, be recorded.  See Commonwealth v. Grassie, 
476 Mass. 202, 220 (2017), S.C., 482 Mass. 1017 (2019) ("the 
entire grand jury proceeding -- with the exception of the grand 
jury's own deliberations -- is to be recorded in a manner that 
permits reproduction and transcription").  An electronic 
recording of a show cause hearing shall be considered a record 
of that hearing, and therefore will not be presumptively public 
where no complaint issues.  See standard 5:02 of the Complaint 
Standards.  The preservation of such audio recordings shall 
continue to be governed by G. L. c. 218, § 35, and standard 5:01 
of the Complaint Standards. 
 
We have carefully considered the argument that recording 
show cause hearings will interfere with clerk-magistrates' 
ability to informally resolve disputes involving minor crimes 
because complainants and accused individuals may be reluctant to 
speak candidly "on the record."  We heard comparable concerns 
about requiring "lobby conferences" with judges regarding a 
possible plea agreement to be conducted on the record.  Those 
fears have not been realized in the four years since this 
requirement was added to our rules of criminal procedure.  See 
Mass. R. Crim. P. 12 (b) (2), as appearing in 470 Mass. 1501 
(2015) ("The judge may participate in plea discussions at the 
request of one or both of the parties if the discussions are 
recorded and made part of the record").  Nor were those fears 
44 
 
 
realized in the decades since this court first declared that 
"the better practice" is to record all lobby conferences where 
possible pleas are discussed.  See Commonwealth v. Fanelli, 412 
Mass. 497, 501 (1992).  We believe that fears about 
electronically recording show cause hearings will likewise prove 
unwarranted. 
 
We recognize that implementing our directive that all show 
cause hearings be electronically recorded will take time, money, 
and training.  We note, as to each of these concerns, that we do 
not require that the electronic recording of show cause hearings 
conducted by clerk-magistrates be identical in its technology or 
its quality to the electronic recording of court room 
proceedings in criminal and civil cases.  We leave it to the 
Trial Court to determine how best and most efficiently to 
accomplish the recording requirement, but we expect it to be 
accomplished within one year of the issuance of this opinion. 
 
5.  Data collection and compilation.  The electronic 
recording of show cause hearings will enhance accountability, 
but it will do little to enhance transparency and public 
confidence where most show cause hearings will be closed and 
most recordings will not be publicly available unless a criminal 
complaint issues.  We are persuaded, however, that the 
transparency of show cause hearings can be enhanced and that 
public confidence can be earned without creating the unfair 
45 
 
 
collateral consequences that would arise from the public 
availability of show cause hearing records where no complaint 
issues. 
 
This can be accomplished by the Trial Court establishing 
uniform record-making and record-keeping policies and procedures 
for the collection of information regarding show cause hearings, 
including information relevant to potential concerns about 
favoritism and disparity of outcomes.  This information can then 
be used to develop compilations that would reveal substantial 
information regarding show cause hearings, but would not reveal 
the identities of the persons accused.21  The compilations would 
be available to the public solely "for scholarly, educational, 
journalistic, or governmental purposes" as "compiled data" 
pursuant to rule 3(a) of the Uniform Rules on Public Access to 
Court Records.22  The Trial Court, in its discretion, could also 
publish some compilations periodically. 
                                                          
 
 
21 Because the compilations will not include identifying 
information, they will not be subject to the one-year 
destruction timeline outlined in G. L. c. 218, § 35. 
 
 
22 "Compiled data" is defined as "electronic court records 
that have been generated by computerized searches of Trial Court 
case management database(s) resulting in the compilation of 
specific data elements."  Rule 1(e) of the Uniform Rules on 
Public Access to Court Records, Trial Court Rule XIV (2016).  
Requests for compiled data must "identify what compiled data is 
sought" and "describe the purpose for requesting the compiled 
data."  Rule 3(a).  "The Court Administrator, in consultation 
with the Chief Justice of the Trial Court, shall have discretion 
46 
 
 
 
We leave it to the Trial Court to determine the most 
effective method by which to collect data in a way that can be 
compiled for dissemination upon request, that responds to 
concerns about favoritism and disparate outcomes, and that does 
not identify the accused where a complaint did not issue.23  We 
suggest that clerk-magistrates should be required to record, at 
a minimum, the dates on which the complaint is filed and the 
hearing is held; the court where the hearing is held; the 
judicial officer who conducts the hearing; whether the 
complainant is a law enforcement officer or a private citizen; 
the gender and race of the accused and, where there is one, of 
the private citizen complainant;24 whether the accused or the 
private citizen complainant, where there is one, is represented 
by an attorney; the names of any such attorneys; the offense 
alleged; and the disposition of the show cause hearing. 
                                                          
 
to grant or deny any request or part thereof for compiled data."  
Rule 3(b). 
 
23 According to the Trial Court, it is currently working to 
standardize the record-keeping practices used to collect show 
cause hearing data, which have thus far varied based on 
docketing procedures in various divisions of the District Court 
and the Boston Municipal Court. 
 
 
24 Where this information is in doubt, the clerk-magistrate 
should request that it be self-reported by the complainant and 
accused.  Cf. Commonwealth v. Bastaldo, 472 Mass. 16, 25-26 
(2015) (noting that "the concept of race is notoriously 
unclear," and that in facial recognition studies concerning 
race, "the person making the identification is generally asked 
to self-identify his or her race, and that self-identification 
is accepted as the person's race for purposes of the study"). 
47 
 
 
 
Conclusion.  We deny the Globe's request for declaratory 
relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, and conclude that there is not a 
presumptive right of public access to the records of all show 
cause hearings where a judicial officer finds probable cause to 
believe that the accused has committed a crime but declines to 
issue a criminal complaint.  We recognize, however, that there 
are circumstances in which the interests of justice would 
require the records of particular show cause hearings to be made 
publicly available on request. 
 
To promote transparency, accountability, and public 
confidence in our judiciary with respect to the conduct of show 
cause hearings in the absence of a presumptive right of public 
access, we exercise our superintendence authority to require 
that all show cause hearings be electronically recorded.  We 
also direct the Trial Court to establish uniform policies and 
procedures for the collection of information regarding show 
cause hearings that can be used to develop informative 
compilations without revealing the identities of the persons 
accused.  Such compilations could be made available to the 
public upon request pursuant to the Uniform Rules on Public 
Access to Court Records, and published periodically at the Trial 
Court's discretion. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
So ordered.