← Back to Search
Blue POV v. Leominster, City of - Police Department (SPR 20240573)
Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Public records appeal decision · Filed 02-23-2024
ClosedFee PetitionDecision
SPR 20240573 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Blue POV concerning records held by Leominster, City of - Police Department, opened 02-23-2024. Type: Fee Petition. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Public records appeal decision.
Case Details
- Case Number
- 20240573
- Case Type
- Fee Petition
- Case Subtype
- Initial
- Status
- Closed
- Requester
- Blue POV
- Date Opened
- 02-23-2024
- Date Closed
- 02-29-2024
PDF Document
Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 29, 2024 SPR24/0573 Matthew Fallon Police Sergeant Records Access Officer Leominster Police Department 29 Church Street Leominster, MA 01453 Dear Sergeant Fallon: On February 23, 2024, this office received your petition on behalf of the Leominster Police Department (Department) seeking permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). As required by law, it is my understanding that the Department furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). On February 6, 2024, Blue POV requested, “[a]ll bodycam footage for the arrest of [a named individual] arrested on 6/22/2023 for disorderly conduct and destruction of property…” Petition 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, § 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. 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. 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. 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 Matthew Fallon SPR24/0573 Page 2 February 29, 2024 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 $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Fee Estimates A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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 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). Petitions relating to fees must be submitted to the Supervisor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Current Petition In its February 23rd petition, the Department states the following in support of its request to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemption (c): Ofc. Dion’s narrative indicates that an ambulance was called so that [a named individual] could be placed in protective custody due to alcohol intoxication. I do not know what [a named individual]’s level of intoxication was or what medical attention he needed, as I would have to review all the footage first, but Ofc. Benoit’s narrative states that [a named individual] “would not be able to take care of himself in that state without harming himself.” Ofc. Benoit also noted that, “We attempted to talk to him into the ambulance with LFD personnel assisting, but we were unsuccessful.” Ofc. Dion’s narrative noted that, “[a named individual] was clearly very intoxicated and because he was so upset with his family…” Also, Ofc. Dion’s narrative states that, “[a named individual] stated Sergeant Matthew Fallon SPR24/0573 Page 3 February 29, 2024 that his family broke his play station and his laptop…” Again, I do not know any additional details of this apparent family dispute, as I would have to review all the footage first. I believe all this information may fall under Exemption C, so redactions may be necessary. In light of the information provided in the Department’s 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 redaction or segregation. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). To the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the Department may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of such exempt material. Conclusion Accordingly, it is my determination that given the nature of the requested records and the explanation in its petition, the Department is permitted to charge for time spent segregating and redacting the requested records. Please note the requestor 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(d)(iv)(4), l0A(c). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Blue POV