Brook Hopkins v. Bridgewater, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20180077)

William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division

Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records

January 24, 2018 SPR18/077

Ann Marie Gill

Bridgewater Police Department

220 Pleasant Street

Bridgewater, MA 02324

Dear Ms. Gill:

I have received your petition on behalf of the Bridgewater 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, § 10(d)(iv). As required by law, the Department furnished a copy of this petition to the requester. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c), (d)(iv)(2). On December 13, 2017 Brook Hopkins from Harvard Law School requested “arrest records for all individuals made between December 1, 2013 and December 31, 2016” inclusive of various information related to the arrest and arrestee.

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;

(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, § 10(c).

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

Ann Marie Gill SPR18/077 Page 2 January 24, 2018

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 C.M.R. 36.06(4)(b).

Petitions for ability to assess fees

Municipalities may not assess a fee for the first two 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 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 (Supervisor) under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii); 950 CMR 32.06(4).

The 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, the fee is necessary such that the request could not have been prudently completed without the redaction, segregation or fee in excess of $25 per hour, and the amount of the fee is reasonable and the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(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. Id. .

Conclusion

In an email sent to this office on December 27, 2017 by Benji Lu, also of Harvard Law: School, the requestor indicates “[w]e do intend to put a hold on our requests to other police departments.” Accordingly, I find in light of the December 27" email in which the requestor indicates an intention to put a hold on the request for records, it is unnecessary to opine on the Town’s petition at this time.

) Sincerely,

Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records ce: Brook Hopkins