Shawn Wiley v. Danvers, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20250220)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 29, 2025 SPR25/0220 James Lovell Police Chief Danvers Police Department 120 Ash Street Danvers, MA 01923 Dear Chief Lovell: On January 24, 2025 this office received your petition on behalf of the Danvers Police Department (Department) seeking an extension of time to produce records and 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, Shawn Wiley. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On January 9, 2025, Mr. Wiley requested the following: With respect to [identified individuals]: 1. Any psychological evaluations[;] 2. All post-incident counseling or reviews[;] 3. Any officer mental health evaluations[;] 4. All email communications involving the above-named officers with any of the below keywords: a. Investigation failure b. Cover-up c. Misconduct d. Bias e. Civil rights complaint f. [identified individual][;] 5. Any POST certifications[;] 6. Any specialized training and certifications[;] 7. Any licenses and/or permits[;] 8. Any records related to renewing certifications, licenses and/or permits[;] 9. Any public statements or press releases regarding the above-named officers[;] 10. Any correspondence with media outlets regarding the above-named officers[;] 11. Any documentation, policies, memoranda, or emails regarding how the Department handles public relations[;] 12. Any Department social media posts regarding these officers and any public responses[;] 13. Any civilian complaints against the Department in the last five years[;] 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

Chief James Lovell SPR25/0220 Page 2 January 29, 2025 14. Any documentation showing the types of civilian complaints filed against the Department in the last five years[;] 15. Any documentation showing the outcomes of civilian complaints filed against the Department in the last five years[;] 16. Any documentation showing the number of complaints that resulted in disciplinary actions[;] 17. Any documentation showing the time taken to resolve complaints[;] 18. Any documentation or policies related to the Department’s handling of complaints[;] 19. Any documentation showing the number of appeals of complaints[;] 20. Any documentation showing the outcomes of appeals of complaints[;] 21. Any settlements of complaints[;] 22. Any FOIA requests submitted to federal agencies regarding the above-named officers[;] 23. Any records related to federal investigations of the Department[;] 24. Any communications, including emails, between the Department and any federal agencies regarding the above-named officers[;] 25. Any records of federal funding to the Department[;] 26. Any communications between the Department and POST regarding the above- named officers[;] 27. Any records of disciplinary actions regarding the above-named officers[;] 28. Any POST records regarding the above-named officers[;] 29. Any communications between the Department and the District Attorney’s Office regarding the above-named officers[;] 30. Any communications between the Department and the District Attorney’s Office regarding misconduct and civil rights complaints[;] 31. Any records of external investigations regarding the above-named officers[;] 32. Any records related to Union grievances submitted by or regarding the above- named officers[;] 33. Any Union records and communications regarding the above-named officers[;] 34. Any communications between the Union and the Department regarding the above-named officers[;] 35. Any audio recordings, transcripts, or logs of 911 calls involving the above- named officers[;] 36. Any communications between dispatch and the above-named officers during incidents[;] 37. Any records related to internal Department audits in the last five years[;] 38. Any records related to external audits or evaluations of the Department[;] 39. Any records related to disciplinary actions taken against any member of the Department form similar complaints as the above-named officers[;] 40. Any records related to the hiring of the above-named officers[;] 41. Any records related to promotion of the above-named officers[;] 42. Any records related to reassignment of the above-named officers[;] 43. Any records related to probationary periods of the above-named officers[;] 44. Any legal settlements or agreements regarding the above-named officers[;]

Chief James Lovell SPR25/0220 Page 3 January 29, 2025 45. Any records related to lawsuits involving the above-named officers[;] 46. Any minutes, agendas, and notes from internal Department meetings regarding the above-named officers[;] 47. Any minutes, agendas and notes from internal Department meetings regarding handling of public records requests, public complaints, and transparency measures[;] 48. Any minutes, agendas, and public statements from any public meetings where the Department was discussed[;] 49. Any communications and documentation related to meetings regarding complaints against the above-named officers[;] 50. Any Department policies related to use of force, body camera, internal affairs and disciplinary procedures, victim advocacy, investigations, and records retention[;] 51. Any body camera and dashcam footage related to incidents involving the above-named officers[;] 52. Any records related to the Department budget and funding for the past five years[;] 53. Any records regarding the compensation of the above-named officers for the past five years[;] 54. Any financial records related to complaints and/or lawsuits involving the above-named officers[;] 55. Any public records requests regarding the above-named officers[;] 56. Any communications and records related to handling public records request regarding the above-named officers[;] 57. Any communications sent or received by the above-named officers regarding “[your] case”[;] 58. Any records related to police investigations where the above-named officers acted as lead and/or assisting officers[;] 59. Any records related to performance evaluations of the above-named officers[;] 60. Any records related to awards, commendations, and/or recognition of the above-named officers[;] 61. Any records relating to use of force reports involving the above-named officers[;] 62. Any records related to administrative decisions signed or overseen by [identified individuals], including approvals of internal investigations, officer discipline, and promotions[;] 63. Any audio recordings of any phone calls, voicemail messages, and transferred calls, by or to the Department, regarding you[;] 64. Any recordings of in-person interactions at the Department[;] 65. Any phone call timestamps related to “[your] case”[;] 66. Any reports and internal memoranda related to “[your] case”[;] 67. Any communications related to “[your] case”[;] 68. Any logs or administrative records related to “[your] case”[;] 69. Any other records related to “[your] case”[.]

Chief James Lovell SPR25/0220 Page 4 January 29, 2025 Petition 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). If the Supervisor determines that the request is part of a series of contemporaneous requests that are frivolous or designed to intimidate or harass, and the requests are not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity, the Supervisor may grant a longer extension or relieve the agency or municipality of its obligation to provide copies of the records sought. Id. The filing of a petition does not affect the requirement that a Records Access Officer (RAO) must provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 36.06(4)(b). Request for Additional Time to Produce Records In its petition, the Department requests, “an additional 30 business days beyond the time specified under statute…” In support of its request the Department provides the following information: Given the incredibly broad scope of the request and the volume of potentially responsive records which require detailed review and redaction, the Department submits that it is not reasonable to require it to produce the responsive records within 10 business days. Therefore, the Department hereby petitions for an extension of time to respond to the request, given that the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure is significant. Additionally, the employee who will perform the search and recovery, segregation and redaction process has many other responsibilities which they cannot ignore. The Department will be

Chief James Lovell SPR25/0220 Page 5 January 29, 2025 unable to complete its review, redaction, and production of records during normal business hours of operation without an extension. In light of the need to collect and examine the records, and the capacity of the Department to produce the records without an extension, the Department has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iii). The Department is granted an extension of 30 business days. 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). Current Petition In its petition, the Department requests, “that it be permitted to charge $25 per hour to search for and identify any responsive records and then segregate and redact the responsive records.” In support of its request, the Department provides the following information concerning anticipated redactions: Based on the nature of the records sought, the Department estimates they would contain the information exempt from disclosure, including, but not limited to, the following bases: 1. Attorney-client privileged information 2. Information exempt from disclosure pursuant to Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law, including: a. CORI information protected by G.L. c. 6, § 167 b. Student record information protected by G.L. c. 71, § 34D and FERPA

Chief James Lovell SPR25/0220 Page 6 January 29, 2025 c. Personal address and telephone number information protected by G.L. c. 66, § 10B d. Communications among Union members protected by G.L. c. 150E e. Reports protected by G.L. c. 41, § 97D f. Executive session information protected by G.L. c. 30A, § 21 g. Juvenile records protected by G.L. c. 119, § 60A 3. Information exempt from disclosure pursuant to Exemption (c), including personnel file information, private information of members of the public, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, and personal cell phone and email address information of members of the public. 4. Information related to ongoing investigations exempt from disclosure pursuant to Exemption (f) 5. Information related to Department security and emergency procedures protected by Exemption (n) 6. Home addresses, personal emails, and personal cell phone numbers of employees protected by Exemption (o). In light of 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, I find the Department has established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days as described above. Additionally, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information described above, the Department may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Further, this office encourages the requestor and the Department to continue to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, §10(b)(vii). Please note, Mr. Wiley 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). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Shawn Wiley