Emma Rindlisbacher v. Taunton, City of - Police Department (SPR 20250287)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 5, 2025 SPR25/0287 John P. Joyce Administrative Lieutenant Records Access Officer Taunton Police Department 23 Summer Street Taunton, MA 02780 Dear Lieutenant Joyce: On January 31, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Taunton 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, I understand that the Department furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor, Emma Rindlisbacher. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). From January 16 through January 23, 2025, Ms. Rindlisbacher submitted numerous requests. In its petition, the Department labels the requests as follows: [A] ... copies of any investigatory reports related to actions taken by Taunton Police Officers related to the arrest of [a named individual] (which occurred in year 2024). [B] ... a copy of the police report pertaining to the crash that occurred yesterday (jan 21) near the “intersection of Somerset Avenue and Silverwood Drive” involving “a Toyota Corolla and a Kayo mini-motorcycle.”... [C] ... copies of any use of force records for the months of July 2024 and August 2024 ... copies of any use of force records for the months of May 2024 and June 2024... ... copies of any use of force records for the months of January 2024 and February 2024... ... copies of any use of force records for the months of March 2024 and April 2024. 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

John P. Joyce SPR25/0287 Page 2 February 5, 2025 In an email to this office on February 3, 2025, Ms. Rindlisbacher objected to the Department’s petition. Petition to Assess Fees – Municipalities 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. 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 $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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).

John P. Joyce SPR25/0287 Page 3 February 5, 2025 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 to Assess Fees In its petition, the Department requests “permission to charge a fee for search, segregation and redaction that is not required by law. The redactions necessary fall under exemptions (c) and (f).” In support of its request, the Department provides the following information: Item A The January 16th request involves an original Police Incident Report and a Supplemental Report. These reports include statements of witnesses (that resulted in an arrest) that require redaction. Redactions would be required under exemption (c) because the report(s) contain information that would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities, this information not believed to be available from other sources; and also under exemption (f) because the reports contain witness statements that would create a grave risk of identifying the voluntary witness(es). Item B The January 22nd request involves a fatal crash that involves an Incident Report and a Supplemental Report. As a result of this being a death investigation, this incident is also under the jurisdiction of the Bristol County District Attorney’s Office and any potentially redacted Taunton Police Reports would need to be coordinated for review by them prior to release. These reports include statements of witnesses and medical information. One report is a detective report that includes evidentiary information that would need redaction under exemption (f). The statements of witness(es) contained in these reports require redaction so as not to prematurely disclose evidence prior to a potential trial and to protect the identity of the voluntary witness(es). The medical condition, medical treatment, etc of an individual within these reports constitute intimate details of a highly personal nature that need redaction under exemption (c). Item C ... UOF records for July/August 2024 (25 records) ... UOF records for May/June 2024. (23 records) ... UOF records for January/February 2024. (37 records) ... UOF records for March/April 2024. (24 records)

John P. Joyce SPR25/0287 Page 4 February 5, 2025 Total 109 Records These requests involve Use of Force reports that contain a variety of information from use of force incidents. Within our Records Management System, these reports contain multiple tabs and have several “open form” fields where an officer can type freely. A quick check revealed a record that stated the subject had a mental health condition and also contained a statement of the subject. Each of these UOF reports would have to be reviewed for similar exemption (c) medical information and exemption (f) statements of witnesses. Not to mention, these would need to be checked to make sure there is no exemption (f) pending criminal or civil proceeding in any of these incidents for potential withholding or redaction so as not to prematurely disclose evidence prior to a potential trial. In an email to this office and Ms. Rindlisbacher on February 4, 2025, the Department further explains the following: Relative to [Item A] ... This report is simply a police incident report detailing a warrant arrest. There is no Professional Standards investigation related to this arrest, nor is there a complaint against the officers involved.... Relative to the UOF reports: ... there were “open-form” fields that could potentially contain information subject to redaction. [The Department provided] a sampling of 5 of the reports ... showing the redactable information marked in red. 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. The Department is reminded that the current language of Exemption (c) prohibits its application to records related to law enforcement misconduct investigations. See G. L. c. 4, § (26)(c). Conclusion Accordingly, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information described above, the Department may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. This office encourages Ms. Rindlisbacher 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 to 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 records sought more efficiently and affordably). Any subsequent fee estimate from the Department must be made in compliance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii) and G. L. c. 66, §

John P. Joyce SPR25/0287 Page 5 February 5, 2025 10(d)(iii). Please note, Ms. Rindlisbacher 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: Emma Rindlisbacher