Danielle Kay v. Massachusetts Department of State Police (SPR 20250719)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 19, 2025 SPR25/0719 Allison Mondello Records Access Officer Massachusetts Department of State Police 470 Worcester Road Framingham, MA 01702 Dear Ms. Mondello: On March 14, 2025, this office received the petition of Alyssa Gough on behalf of the Department of State Police (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, the Department furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On March 4, 2025, Danielle Kay requested “records related to the accident involving [an identified individual]: police reports, supplemental crash reports, witness statements, photographs, 911 calls, and call logs, as well as officer body and dash cam video footage.” In making her request, Ms. Kay specified that the accident occurred on January 1, 2025, in “Holyoke, MA on 1-91 NB[.]” Petition to Assess Fees – Agencies 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 (Supervisor) 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). 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 an agency’s petition to allow the agency 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 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

Allison Mondello SPR25/0719 Page 2 March 19, 2025 purpose. The second prong of the test is whether the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the agency 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; 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 – Agencies An agency 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). Agencies may not assess a fee for the first four (4) hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ii). Where appropriate, agencies 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. 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)(ii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). Current Petition In its petition, the Department seeks “approval to assess fees for costs associated with responding to a public records request.” The Department further states the following in support of its request: [A] large percentage of department [sic] and records may relate to highly sensitive matters. Further, given our office’s and our agencies’ collaboration with other state and federal agencies on criminal investigations and other matters regarding state and national security, the resulting records undoubtedly contain privileged and exempt information such as intelligence and investigative data, personnel, private, and security related information, as well as information related solely to internal personnel rules and practices of government necessary to withhold to ensure the proper performance of the Massachusetts State Police. These categories of information are specifically exempt pursuant to G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26

Allison Mondello SPR25/0719 Page 3 March 19, 2025 (a), (b), (c), (f), and/or (n) and are not subject to public disclosure. Accordingly, the information must be segregated and redacted from the records before the records are produced to a third party such as the requestor. 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 As discussed above, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information described in its petition, the Department may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. Please note, Ms. Kay 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: Danielle Kay