Don Forsyth v. Taunton, City of - Police Department (SPR 20251565)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 6, 2025 SPR25/1565 Lieutenant John P. Joyce Records Access Officer Taunton Police Department 23 Summer Street Taunton, MA 02780 Dear Lieutenant Joyce: On June 3, 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, Don Forsyth. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On May 19, and May 20, 2025, Mr. Forsyth submitted seven requests, which the Department identified as Items A through G, as follows: [A] [R]ecords related to the following incident: 22-019850… the full incident report and CAD log, including narrative, call details, officers dispatched, and arrest information. [B] [R]ecords related to the following police incident: 23-001100… The full police incident report, including any narratives, officer statements, or supplements. The CAD incident log or call-for-service summary, including: Time and date of call[;] Nature of incident[;] Officers dispatched[;] Arrest information[;] Charges filed (if applicable)[.] [C] [R]ecords related to the following police incident: 23-004301… The full police incident report, including any narratives, officer statements, or supplements. The CAD incident log or call-for-service summary, including: Time and date of call[;] Nature of incident[;] Officers dispatched[;] Arrest information[;] Charges filed (if applicable)[.] [D] [R]ecords related to the following police incident: 23-001637… The full police incident report, including any narratives, officer statements, or 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 SPR25/1565 Page 2 June 6, 2025 supplements. The CAD incident log or call-for-service summary, including: Time and date of call[;] Nature of incident[;] Officers dispatched[;] Arrest information[;] Charges filed (if applicable)[.] [E] [R]ecords related to the following police incident: 23-021370… The full police incident report, including any narratives, officer statements, or supplements; The CAD incident log or call-for-service summary, including: Time and date of call[;] Nature of incident[;] Officers dispatched (Officer Identifier Number is acceptable) [;] Arrest information[;] Charges filed (if applicable)[.] [F] [R]ecords related to the following police incident involving multiple arrests: 22-3321… The full police incident report, including any narratives, officer statements, or supplements; The CAD incident log or call-for-service summary, including: Time and date of call[;] Nature of incident[;] Officers dispatched (Officer Identifier Number is acceptable) [;] Arrest information[;] Charges filed (if applicable)[.] [G] [R]ecords related to the following police incident: 22-016933… The full police incident report, including any narratives, officer statements, or supplements; The CAD incident log or call-for-service summary, including: Time and date of call[;] Nature of incident[;] Officers dispatched (Officer Identifier Number is acceptable) [;] Arrest information[;] Charges filed (if applicable)[.] 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 understanding 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

Lieutenant John P. Joyce SPR25/1565 Page 3 June 6, 2025 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). 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 argues the following in support of its request to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law: Item A (TPD Report #22-019850) The May 19th (4:42 p.m.) request involves a response to a disturbance inside the emergency room at the hospital where an individual was attempting to receive treatment and was ultimately arrested. The report involved would need medical information redaction not required by law. This case would also need to be checked to make sure there is no exemption (f) pending criminal or civil proceeding for potential withholding or redaction so as not to prematurely disclose evidence prior to a potential trial. Item B (TPD Report #23-001100) The May 19th, 2025 (10:07 p.m.) request involves a response to a group home operated by Community Counseling of Bristol County where an individual who is

Lieutenant John P. Joyce SPR25/1565 Page 4 June 6, 2025 receiving services by CCBC is identified in the police report. This report would need exemption (c) medical information redaction, not required by law. This police report also involves an arrest which would need to be checked for any necessary exemption (f) redaction related to potential ongoing criminal proceedings. Item C (TPD Report #R23-004301) The May 19th (10:08 p.m.) request is an arrest report resulting from a disturbance. This report would need to be searched for potential redactions within the narrative and would also need to be checked to make sure there is no exemption (f) pending criminal or civil proceeding for potential withholding or redaction so as not to prematurely disclose evidence prior to a potential trial. Item D (TPD Report 23-001637) The May 20th, 2025 (12:31 p.m.) request involves an arrest report resulting from a disturbance. This report needs redaction of a cell-phone number under exemption (c). This report would need to be searched for potential redactions within the narrative and would also need to be checked to make sure there is no exemption (f) pending criminal or civil proceeding for potential withholding or redaction so as not to prematurely disclose evidence prior to a potential trial. This redaction and potential redactions are not required by law. Item E (TPD Report 23-021370) The May 20th, 2025 (12:33 p.m.) request involves an arrest resulting from a suspicious person call. This report would need to be searched for redactable information. At a minimum, there is a cell-phone number that would need redaction under exemption (c) and would also need to be checked to make sure there is no exemption (f) pending criminal or civil proceeding for potential withholding or redaction so as not to prematurely disclose evidence prior to a potential trial. This redaction and potential redactions are not required by law. Item F (22TAU-3321-A-AR) (22TAU-3321-AR) (22TAU-3321-B-AR) (22TAU- 3321-C-AR) The May 20th, 2025 (1:35 p.m.) request involves 4 arrest reports. 22TAU-3321-A-AR This report contains a social security number and cell-phone number that would require redacting under exemption (c). This report and would also need to be checked to make sure there is no exemption (f) pending criminal or civil proceeding for potential withholding or redaction so as not to prematurely disclose evidence prior to a potential trial. This redaction and potential redactions are not required by law.

Lieutenant John P. Joyce SPR25/1565 Page 5 June 6, 2025 22TAU-3321-AR This report contains a social security number and cell-phone number that would require redacting under exemption (c). This report and would also need to be checked to make sure there is no exemption (f) pending criminal or civil proceeding for potential withholding or redaction so as not to prematurely disclose evidence prior to a potential trial. This redaction and potential redactions are not required by law. 22TAU-3321-B-AR This report contains a social security number that would require redacting under exemption (c). This report and would also need to be checked to make sure there is no exemption (f) pending criminal or civil proceeding for potential withholding or redaction so as not to prematurely disclose evidence prior to a potential trial. This redaction and potential redactions are not required by law. 22TAU-3321-C-AR This report contains a social security number and cell-phone number that would require redacting under exemption (c). This report and would also need to be checked to make sure there is no exemption (f) pending criminal or civil proceeding for potential withholding or redaction so as not to prematurely disclose evidence prior to a potential trial. This redaction and potential redactions are not required by law. Item G (TPD Report 22-016933) The May 20th, 2025 (1:38 p.m.) request involves an arrest on a warrant and new charges. This report would need to be checked to make sure there is no exemption (f) pending criminal or civil proceeding for potential withholding or redaction so as not to prematurely disclose evidence prior to a potential trial. This redaction and potential redactions are 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. 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. I encourage the parties to communicate further to enable the Department to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. Please note, Mr. Forsyth 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).

Lieutenant John P. Joyce SPR25/1565 Page 6 June 6, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Don Forsyth