Emma Rindlisbacher v. Taunton, City of - Police Department (SPR 20251217)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 9, 2025 SPR25/1217 John P. Joyce Lieutenant Records Access Officer Taunton Police Department 23 Summer Street Taunton, MA 02780 Dear Lieutenant Joyce: On May 1, 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 April 16 through April 30, 2025, Ms. Rindlisbacher submitted eight requests, which the Department identified as Items A through H, as follows: [A] . . . use of force reports between Mar 1, 2025 and April 15, 2025. . . . [B] . . . any records (including documents videos etc) that the department has released to [a named individual] in response to a public records request. [C] . . . any police records related to events that occurred on Winthrop street in taunton {sic}. Please limit this request to documents between April 24, 2025 and April 28, 2025. [D] . . . any police records related to events that occurred on Chandler Avenue in taunton {sic}. Please limit this request to documents between April 24, 2025 and April 28, 2025. [E] . . . any police records related to events that occurred on high street in taunton {sic}. Please limit this request to documents between April 18, 2025 and April 28, 2025. 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

Lieutenant John P. Joyce SPR25/1217 Page 2 May 9, 2025 [F] . . . any police reports related to the detaining of people in Taunton by ICE. Please limit this request to documents between March 1, 2025 and the date that the search is conducted. [G] . . . copies of any police records related to [a named individual]. [H] . . .any police reports pertaining to locations on Hart Street from April 15, 2025 and the date the search is conducted. 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,

Lieutenant John P. Joyce SPR25/1217 Page 3 May 9, 2025 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 to Assess Fees In its petition, the Department states that it “is requesting 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 petition, the Department explains the following regarding each request: Item A 18 Records The April 16th (9:58 a.m.) request involves 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 required by law. 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. Item B The April 16th, 2025 (10:00 a.m.) request involves a request for body-worn camera footage that was requested by another party. Those records have previously been redacted and can be provided with 15 minutes of time to search for the records and provide them. In an email to this office on May 5, 2025, the Department clarified the following with regard to Item B: Item B . . . consists of records already segregated and redacted, and the production time will be negligible. Considering those factors, and in the interest of cooperation, the department intends to produce those records to Ms. Rindlisbacher.

Lieutenant John P. Joyce SPR25/1217 Page 4 May 9, 2025 In its May 1st petition, the Department continued with the following explanations: Item C 35 Records The April 28th (10:36 a.m.) request is a request for records related to incidents occurring on Winthrop St during a 5 day period. Winthrop Street is an undivided state highway that is a main road in the city, which is developed with a mix of residential and commercial development in different areas. There were 35 calls for service logged during the requested period. A quick perusal of the first several calls shows a medical call (25-010223) that would need redaction under exemption (c), which is not required by law. Item D 1 Record (TPD Report 25-009960) The April 28th, 2025 (3:56 p.m.) request involves a request for records pertaining to incidents that occurred on Chandler Ave during a 5 day period. This request involves a single call for service that involves a death investigation. This investigation is 5 days old and involves a deceased individual found in a local river. The only report completed is the initial responding officer’s report. This report needs redaction of cell-phone numbers under exemption (c) and statements of witnesses under exemption (f). Redaction of this report would also require coordination with the Bristol County District Attorney’s Office. The statements of witness(es) contained in these reports require redaction so as not to prematurely disclose evidence prior to any potential trial and to protect the identity of the voluntary witness(es). These redactions are not required by law. This request is unnecessarily duplicated in Item G. Item E 14 Records (Calls for service on High Street) This request involves a request for records pertaining to incidents occurring on High St in Taunton during an 11 day period. 9 of these records appear to have redactable information (cell-phone numbers) not required by law, under exemption (c). Item F 5546 records (Calls for service from March 1st through April 29th) This request is a request for records pertaining to incidents involving “I.C.E.” detaining people in Taunton from March 1st through April 29th. There were 5546 calls for service during this time. Each log item would have to be reviewed and incidents with associated police report would need to be read/scanned. I estimate approximately 180 calls for service and their associated report could be scanned read each hour. It is unknown whether any of these records contain the data the requestor is looking for. It is impossible to know prior to identifying any potential records, but it is possible any records found might contain cell-phone numbers that would need redaction under exemption (c) that are not required by law. Item G 1 Record (TPD Report 25-009960) This request involves a death investigation. This investigation is 5 days old and involves a deceased individual found in a local river. The only report completed is

Lieutenant John P. Joyce SPR25/1217 Page 5 May 9, 2025 the initial responding officer’s report. This report needs redaction of cell-phone numbers under exemption (c) and statements of witnesses under exemption (f). Redaction of this report would also require coordination with the Bristol County District Attorney’s Office. The statements of witness(es) contained in these reports require redaction so as not to prematurely disclose evidence prior to any potential trial and to protect the identity of the voluntary witness(es). These redactions are not required by law. This is a duplicitous secondary request identical to Item D. Item H 41 Records (Calls for service on Hart St) This request is a request for records/reports associated with Hart St in Taunton. Hart St is a secondary main road connecting two main areas of Taunton (The Weir and East Taunton). It is mainly residential with a small amount of commercial development. A quick perusal of these records shows redactions necessary under exemption (c) (cell-phone numbers) and exemption (f) (statements of witnesses), but not required by law. 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, I find that to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information described above, the Department may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. 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