Marina Villeneuve v. Dartmouth, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20240173)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 24, 2024 SPR24/0173 Stacey Pelland Administrative Clerk Dartmouth Police Department 1390 Tucker Road Dartmouth, MA 02747 Dear Ms. Pelland: On January 19, 2024, this office received your petition on behalf of the Dartmouth Police Department (Department) seeking permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). As required by law, it is my understanding that the Department furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Marina Villeneuve of Boston 25 News – WFXT. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On January 10, 2024, Ms. Villeneuve requested the following records: [1] All public records requests for body-worn camera footage made in calendar year 2023 (including copies of all correspondence and copies of all body camera footage released)[;] [2] All policies concerning body-worn camera footage (including retention, release, storage, etc.)[;] [3] Records showing whether your police department currently requires body- worn cameras as of January 10, 2024[;] [4] Records of compensation/stipends paid to officers for wearing body-worn cameras in fiscal year 2023[;] [5] Records of funds spent on storage of body-worn camera footage in fiscal year 2023. Petition to assess fees – Municipalities 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. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). 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

Stacey Pelland SPR24/0173 Page 2 January 24, 2024 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, § 10(d)(iv). The statute sets out a two-prong test for determining whether the Supervisor may approve a municipality’s petition to allow the municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting records or to charge in excess of $25 an hour for the provision of public records. The first prong is whether the request for records was made for a commercial purpose. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). It is my determination that this request was not made for a commercial purpose. The second prong of the test is whether the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. The Supervisor must consider 1) if the fee is necessary such that the request could not have been prudently completed without the redaction or segregation or fee in excess of $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Petitions seeking a waiver of statutory limits to fees assessed to segregate and/or redact public records must be made within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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).

Stacey Pelland SPR24/0173 Page 3 January 24, 2024 Current Petition In its petition, the Department requests “permission to charge the following fees associated with the search and segregation of the requested records,” and provides the following information: [E]xemption (c): Dates of birth, email addresses, juvenile information, medical information, and telephone number(s)…[T]he records requested contain information which, if disclosed, would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Such information contains intimate details and the privacy interests involved outweigh the public interests in the disclosure of that information. … [E]xemption (a): Domestic Violence – Pursuant to G. L. c. 41, § 97D, the Dartmouth Police Department is unable to furnish a copy of the aforementioned report to someone other than the victim, the victim’s attorney, others specifically authorized by the victim to obtain such information, and victim-witness advocates. … [E]xemption (a): CORI – As a result, any and all Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI), such as a criminal charge or like information, shall not be public record and is protected under statute/law. Based on the information provided in its fee petition, I find the Department has met its burden to explain how, given the nature of the responsive records, the request could not prudently be completed without segregation or redaction. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Conclusion Accordingly, I find the Department has met its burden to explain how the response could not be prudently completed without redaction or segregation. To the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the Department may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. Additionally, I encourage the parties to communicate further to enable the Department to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. Please note, Ms. Villeneuve has the right to seek judicial review of this decision by commencing a civil action in the appropriate superior court. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(c), 10(d)(iv)(4), 10A(c).

Stacey Pelland SPR24/0173 Page 4 January 24, 2024 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Marina Villeneuve