Alvina Shea v. Taunton, City of - Police Department (SPR 20250753)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 19, 2025 SPR25/0753 John P. Joyce Administrative Lieutenant Records Access Officer Taunton Police Department 23 Summer Street Taunton, MA 02780 Dear Lieutenant Joyce: On March 18, 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, Alvina Shea. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On March 4, 2025, Ms. Shea requested “a record of all responses to calls for service (dispatch responses) from the Taunton police department for the years 2000 to the present, or as many years as are available.” Specifically, Ms. Shea sought numerous data fields concerning the Department’s responses to calls for service, crime incidents reported to police and arrest charges. In its petition, the Department labels these items as follows: [Part A] Data Observation (Rows): Call for service responses Data Fields: Dispatch Call ID number, Dispatch code, Call Description, Priority Level of Call, Call Disposition, whether a crime incident report was written (and Crime Incident ID if relevant), Address (with Street, City, Zip), Geographic Coordinates, Police Division, Police Beat, Time of Call, Time of Dispatch, Time of Arrival, Date of Call. [Part B] Data Observation (Rows): Crime incidents reported to police. Data Fields: Crime Incident ID, Offense Type, Offense Level (Misdemeanor/ Felony Class), Time and Date of Offense, Location of Offense (Address and/or Geographic Coordinates), Dispatch Call ID number (if relevant and available), Police Division, Police Beat. 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 SPR25/0753 Page 2 March 19, 2025 [Part C] Data Observation (Rows): Arrest Charge Data Fields: Arrest ID number, Arrestee Name, Race, Ethnicity, Gender, Age, and Home Address; Offense and Charge Description, Charge Level (Misdemeanor/Felony Class), Time and Date of Arrest, Location of Arrest (Address and/or Geographic Coordinates), Crime Incident Report ID number (if available), Police Division, Police Beat. It is my understanding that the Department’s petition concerns Parts A and C of the request. 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

John P. Joyce SPR25/0753 Page 3 March 19, 2025 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 to charge fees for segregation and redaction of the responsive records, and argues the following in support of its request: The redactions necessary fall under exemption (c) (both the medical prong and the privacy prong) and exemption (f). [Part A] [The Department has] identified a record called an “Event Detail Report”, which is a version of our blotter produced by our records management system. The “Event Detail Report” contains most, but not all of the data fields requested. Without collaboration, it is unknown if this record(s) serve the needs of the requestor. These reports include: call descriptions as noted by dispatchers, names, dates of birth, cell phone numbers, statements of witnesses and medical/mental health information that require redaction under Exemptions (c) and (f). 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 voluntary witness(es). [Part C]… [The Department] can provide a spreadsheet of arrests under our “Arrest Search” tab within our records management system. The “Arrest Search” contains most, but not all of the data fields requested. Without collaboration, it is unknown if this record(s) serve the needs of the requestor. These records contain charge descriptions which could contain domestic violence charges, section 12 “arrests” (involuntary crisis transports to hospital) and also contain juvenile arrests. These would need to be searched, segregated and redacted based upon exemptions (a) and (c). 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

John P. Joyce SPR25/0753 Page 4 March 19, 2025 the segregation and redaction of such exempt material. 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. Shea and the Department to continue to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii). Please note, Ms. Shea 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: Alvina Shea