Dusty Christensen v. Hadley, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20171217)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records September 13, 2017 SPR17/1217 Sergeant Mitchell J. Kuc, Jr. Operations Supervisor Hadley Police Department 15 East Street Hadley, MA 01035 Dear Sergeant Kuc: I have received your petition on behalf of the Hadley Police Department (Department) seeking an extension of time to furnish copies of a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10( c ). The Department is also seeking to charge for segregation and redaction of the records. G. L. c. 66, § lO(d)(iv). As required by law, the Department furnished a copy of this petition to the requester. G. L. c. 66, § lO(c), (d)(iv)(2). On August 29, 2017, Dusty Christensen submitted three categories of requests including (1) use of force reports for calendar years 2012 to 2016; (2) an inventory of the Department's tactical equipment; and (3) a demographic break down of all motor vehicle stops, motor vehicle citations and overall arrests from calendar years 2012-2016. Petitions for an extension of time Under the Public Records Law, upon a showing of good cause, the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) may grant a single extension to an agency not to exceed 20 business days and a single extension to a municipality not to exceed 30 business days. In determining whether there has been a showing of good cause, the Supervisor shall consider, but shall not be limited to considering: (i) the need to search for, collect, segregate or examine records; (ii) the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure; (iii) the capacity or the normal business hours of operation of the agency or municipality to produce the request without the extension; (iv) efforts undertaken by the agency or municipality in fulfilling the current request and previous requests; 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

Sergeant Mitchell J. Kuc, Jr. SPRl 7/1217 Page2 September 13, 2017 (v) whether the request, either individually or as part of a series of requests from the same requestor, is frivolous or intended to harass or intimidate the agency or municipality; and (vi) the public interest served by expeditious disclosure. G. L. c. 66 § lO(c). The filing of a petition does not affect the requirement that a Records Access Officer (RAO) shall provide an initial response to a requester within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 CMR 36.06(4)(b). Extension oft ime The Department submitted this petition requesting "an extension to complete the process, if needed." The Department explains in regard to the request for an analysis of Use of Force incidents between 2012 and 2016 that their "Records Management System does not track those types of incidents specifically, and they would need to be manually searched." The Department further explains that there are "nearly 1500 arrest reports" they need to segregate and redact and estimate it will take 75 hours total, approximately 20 reports an hour. They state "this is nearly two weeks of work" and "estimate that it will take nearly a month to compile these statistics alone" while continuing their daily operations. I find that in light of the volume and broad scope of request, the Department has established good cause to permit an extension of time of 10 business days beyond the statutorily granted 25 business days from the date of receipt of the request for production of the responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c )(i)-(iv). Petitions for ability to assess fees The Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) may approve a petition from a municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting or to charge in excess of $25 per hour, if the Supervisor determines that 1) the request is for a commercial purpose or 2) the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. G. L. c. 66, § lO(d)(iv). In rendering such a decision, the Supervisor is required to consider the following: a) the public interest served by limiting the cost of public access to the records; b) the financial ability of the requestor to pay the additional or increased fees; and c) any other relevant extenuating circumstances. G. L. c. 66, § lO(d)(iv). Municipalities may not assess a fee for the first (two) 2 hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested unless the municipality has 20,000 people or less. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d )(iii). Where appropriate, municipalities may include as part of the fee an hourly rate equal to or less than the hourly rate attributed to the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill required to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce a record requested, but the fee shall not be more than $25

Sergeant Mitchell J. Kuc, Jr. SPR17/1217 Page 3 September 13, 2017 per hour. Id. A fee shall not be assessed for time spent segregating or redacting records unless such segregation or redaction is required by law or approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § lO(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § lO(d)(iii); 950 CMR 32.06(4). The Supervisor may approve a petition from an agency or municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting if the Supervisor determines that the fee is necessary such that the request could not have been prudently completed without the redaction or segregation. G. L. c. 66, § 10( d)(iv). The Department has "petitioned for reasonable fees" in which they want to charge $17.00 to segregate and redact the 1500 arrest reports. A member of the Public Records Division staff spoke with Chief Mason and he indicated there may be juvenile records in the arrest reports which they are statutorily required to redact. Chief Mason also cited Exemption (f) to redact witness names and other information. I find the Department has met its burden to explain how, given the nature of the responsive records and the applicable Exemptions, the request cannot be prudently completed without redaction or segregation. See G. L. c. 66, § lO(d)(iv). Consequently, I approve the petition from the Department to assess time necessary to segregate and redact juvenile and voluntary witness information from the requested records. Conclusion Accordingly, I find the Department has established good cause for an extension of time. c. See G. L. 66 § lO(b). Additionally, the Department's petition to assess fees for segregation and redaction of the records is granted. See 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). The Department is advised it must provide the records in a manner consistent with this determination, the Public Records Law and its Access Regulations. The requestor may appeal the substantive nature of the Department's response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Dusty Christensen