Andrew Quemere v. Haverhill, City of - Police Department (SPR 20222027)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 19, 2022 SPR22/2027 Aniela Ricci Records Department Haverhill Police Department 40 Bailey Boulevard Haverhill, MA 01832 Dear Ms. Ricci: I have received the petition of Andrew Quemere appealing the response of the Haverhill Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 8, 2022, Mr. Quemere requested five categories of records relating to the Department’s use-of-force policies, reports, and data. The Department responded on August 23, 2022, providing some responsive records and a fee estimate for others. Objecting to the fees, Mr. Quemere appealed, and this case was opened as a result. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). “Public records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency or municipality of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Att’y for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. If there are any fees associated with a response, a written good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. 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

Aniela Ricci SPR22/2027 Page 2 September 19, 2022 Fee Estimates A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.05) per page may be assessed for a black and white single or double-sided photocopy of a public record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(i). Municipalities may not assess a fee for the first 2 (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. However, municipalities may charge more than $25 per hour if such rate is approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). 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, § 10(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). The Department’s August 23rd Fee Estimate In its August 23, 2022 response, the Department explains “that there are approximately 1,500 incidents logged in the Haverhill Police electronic use of force tracking software since January 1, 2004,” and goes on to state that “to aggregate the data; review it; and then redact any protected data, it would take approximately over 50 hours.” The Department provides the following table with its estimate: TITLE HOURS PER HOUR COST IT Personnel review, consultation with software company, and procurement of data 2 Free 1,500 Records (x2 minutes of data review per 1 incident 50 (3,000 minutes) $25.00 (per hour) ********************************************************************** TOTAL HOURS 50 ESTIMATED TOTAL COST: $1,250.00 Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear why the Department requires the amount of time described above to respond to the request. The Department must provide further details regarding the tasks involved and what each task entails, including the time it is allocating to compiling, segregating, redacting and reproducing the requested records. See G. L. c. 66,

Aniela Ricci SPR22/2027 Page 3 September 19, 2022 § 10(d)(iv) (requiring the amount of the fee be reasonable). Additionally, the Department is advised that, in accordance with the Public Records Law, 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, § 10(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). Information that is “required by law” to be segregated or redacted is found in statutes that explicitly indicate that certain records or information are not public records. Some common examples are the Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) Act (G. L. c. 6, § 167), and laws regarding the confidentiality of domestic violence records (G. L. c. 41, § 97D; G. L. c. 41, § 98F; G. L. c. 209A, § 8). These statutes operate through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. Segregation or redaction under the attorney-client privilege is also interpreted to be “required by law.” Accordingly, the Department must provide further explanation as to whether the redactions described in the fee estimate are required by law. Based on a phone discussion between this office and the Department, I understand that the Department believes that narrowing the scope of Mr. Quemere’s request may possibly allow the Department to provide at least some of the data he seeks without incurring a fee. This office encourages Mr. Quemere and the Department to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the municipality to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Any revision to the request would result in the requirement to issue a revised fee estimate. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Quemere with a response to his request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of this response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Andrew Quemere