Lawrence Mayor Brian DePeña was indicted on September 24, 2026 on 15 state charges: 14 counts of distributing a wiretapped communication and one count of witness intimidation. Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s office says a security system the mayor had installed for his office secretly recorded a conversation between two city employees in a City Hall hallway, and that DePeña sent copies to 14 people.
Massachusetts has one of the strictest recording laws in the country. It is also a law with an unusual structure, which explains why the charges look the way they do.
What the Attorney General alleges
According to the Attorney General’s office, as reported by WBUR and CBS News:
- Beginning in 2023, DePeña requested and installed a security system for his office, separate from the cameras City Hall already maintained.
- In March 2026, a hallway conversation between two city employees outside the mayor’s office was audio and video recorded without the knowledge of at least one of them.
- The city’s own cameras do not record audio, and there was no public notice that the mayor’s system did.
- “Knowing that this conversation had been both audio and video recorded, Mayor DePeña distributed copies of the recordings to 14 individuals,” the office said.
The episode became public this spring, WBUR reported, when a local radio station broadcast audio of DePeña’s then chief of staff and the city’s airport director arguing over a wage issue. State Police later executed a search warrant at his office. Arraignment on the state charges will be scheduled later.
These are allegations. DePeña is presumed innocent, and his representatives did not respond to requests for comment. Separately, CBS reported that he was arrested in August on federal wire fraud and money laundering charges alleging misuse of $1.5 million in COVID relief funds. Those charges are also unproven.
The Massachusetts wiretap statute in one rule
The law is G.L. c. 272, § 99. Its core is a single definition. An “interception” means “to secretly hear, secretly record, or aid another to secretly hear or secretly record the contents of any wire or oral communication through the use of any intercepting device by any person other than a person given prior authority by all parties to such communication.”
Two features set Massachusetts apart.
All parties. Recording is lawful only with authority from every party to the conversation. Many states allow a participant to record on his or her own. Massachusetts does not.
No privacy requirement. “Oral communication” is defined simply as “speech.” The statute does not ask whether the speakers expected privacy. As the First Circuit put it in 2020, “unlike other concerned states, Massachusetts does not recognize any exceptions based on whether that person has an expectation of privacy in what is recorded.” A conversation in a public hallway is covered. So is one the recorder could have overheard by standing nearby.
What the law targets is secrecy. The SJC has read “secretly” to mean the person recorded lacked actual knowledge of the recording, according to the First Circuit’s summary of state law. Open recording, where people know a device is recording audio, is a different matter. That is why the Attorney General emphasized that the city cameras do not record audio and that there was no notice this system did.
Why the charges are for distribution, not recording
Section 99 contains separate crimes with very different penalties.
- Interception, § 99 C.1. Willfully intercepting, attempting to intercept, or getting someone else to intercept a communication. Up to five years in state prison, which makes it a felony. The statute adds that proof of “the installation of any intercepting device … under circumstances evincing an intent to commit an interception” is prima facie evidence of this offense.
- Disclosure or use, § 99 C.3. Willfully disclosing the contents of a communication, or using them, “knowing that the information was obtained through interception.” This is “a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a jail or a house of correction for not more than two years” or a fine of up to $5,000.
The indictments, as described by the Attorney General’s office, charge only the second: 14 counts of distribution, one for each person who allegedly received a copy. There is no reported count for the recording itself. The Attorney General has not said why, and we will not guess. The practical effect is that the wiretap counts are misdemeanors, and the most serious charge is witness intimidation, which WBUR notes is a felony.
The knowledge element matters for the distribution counts. Prosecutors must prove DePeña knew the recording was made through an interception, meaning secretly and without everyone’s consent. The Attorney General’s statement quoted above is aimed at exactly that element.
Does it matter that the people recorded were public employees?
Less than people tend to assume. In Commonwealth v. Hyde, 434 Mass. 594 (2001), the SJC upheld the conviction of a motorist who secretly recorded police officers during a traffic stop. The statute, the court said, “is carefully worded and unambiguous, and lists no exception for a private individual who secretly records the oral communications of public officials.”
The First Circuit later carved out a narrow constitutional exception. In Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins, 982 F.3d 813 (1st Cir. 2020), it held that § 99 violates the First Amendment insofar as it prohibits “the secret, nonconsensual audio recording of police officers discharging their official duties in public spaces.” It declined to decide the broader claim covering all government officials, dismissing that part as not ripe.
Neither ruling helps much here. The people allegedly recorded were city employees, not police officers performing duties in public, and the recorder was the mayor, not a member of the public watching government.
Civil exposure
Section 99 also creates a private lawsuit. Under § 99 Q, anyone whose communication was intercepted, disclosed or used unlawfully may recover actual damages of at least $100 per day of violation or $1,000, whichever is higher, plus punitive damages and attorney’s fees. WBUR reported that the Lawrence police union and the City Council president are both asking whether their own conversations were recorded.
Frequently asked questions
What is Lawrence Mayor Brian DePeña charged with?
A state grand jury indicted him on 14 counts of distributing a wiretapped communication under G.L. c. 272, section 99 and one count of witness intimidation, according to the Attorney General’s office. He is presumed innocent, and arraignment has not been scheduled.
Is Massachusetts a one-party or two-party consent state?
Massachusetts requires the consent of all parties. Secretly recording a conversation without authority from everyone in it is an interception under G.L. c. 272, section 99, regardless of whether the speakers expected privacy.
Is it legal to secretly record public officials in Massachusetts?
Generally no. The SJC held in Commonwealth v. Hyde (2001) that the statute has no exception for public officials. The First Circuit has held the ban unconstitutional only as applied to secretly recording police officers performing their duties in public spaces.
Is sharing a secret recording a crime even if you did not make it?
Yes, if you know it was obtained through an unlawful interception. Willful disclosure or use under section 99 C.3 is a misdemeanor punishable by up to two years in a house of correction and a $5,000 fine.
Sources: Attorney General’s office announcement as reported by WBUR (September 24, 2026) and CBS News (September 25, 2026); the count breakdown is from CBS, and other outlets reported 15 charges in total. Statutory text of G.L. c. 272, section 99 read at malegislature.gov. Citations verified and opinions read: Commonwealth v. Hyde, 434 Mass. 594 (2001); Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins, 982 F.3d 813 (1st Cir. 2020). We have not read the indictments. Brian DePeña is presumed innocent of both the state and federal charges. General information about Massachusetts law, not legal advice.