Phillip M. Alberto v. Medford Police Department (SPR 20252012)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 16, 2025 SPR25/2012 Joseph W. Casey Police Lieutenant Medford Police Department 100 Main Street Medford, MA 01255 Dear Lieutenant Casey: On July 11, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Medford 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, it is my understanding that the Department furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Phillip M. Alberto. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L.c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On June 26, 2025, Mr. Alberto requested the following: Under the Massachusetts Public Records Law, G.L. c. 66, § 10, I am formally requesting access to all records in the possession of the Medford Police Department related to the death of [an identified individual], who was found deceased at his home on March 19, 2025, from an apparent gunshot wound. The requested materials include, but are not limited to:  Police incident and investigation reports[;]  Dispatch and call logs[;]  Witness or suspect interview reports or transcripts[;]  Body-worn or dashboard camera recordings[;]  Photograph, diagrams, or evidence logs[;]  Communication with other law enforcement or the medical examiner[;]  Any findings, summaries, or conclusions regarding the case. 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 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

Joseph W. Casey SPR25/2012 Page 2 July 16, 2025 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). 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 “. . . authorization to charge the requestor for the time to segregate and/or redact video footage in compliance with the exemptions to the Public

Joseph W. Casey SPR25/2012 Page 3 July 16, 2025 Records Law…” In support of its petition, the Department provides the following information: Exemption C: “materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute and unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” (i.e. the disclosure of personal medical information of a specifically identified individual, as well as candid statements made about an individual based on the makers opinions which may be perceived as objectionable to that individual; as well as images of the interior of residential dwellings in which personal privacy interests are involved.) Exemption F: “Investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of the public view by law enforcement .... the disclosure of which materials would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest” (i.e. statements made by third parties to investigating police officers that are made candidly and out of public view that disclosure is not in the public interest, due to perceptions as objectionable information may result in the reluctance of individuals to speaking candidly with police officers where those statements would be subject to disclosure through Body Worn Camera footage and chill cooperation with police investigations) Based on the information provided in its fee 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 segregation or redaction. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Conclusion Accordingly, I find the Department has met its burden to explain how the response could not be prudently completed without redaction or segregation. To the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the Department may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. Please note, Mr. Alberto 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: Phillip M. Alberto