Maria Paula Rojas v. Dartmouth, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20252019)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 16, 2025 SPR25/2019 Nicole Perullo Police Clerk Dartmouth Police Department 1390 Tucker Road Dartmouth, MA 02747 Dear Ms. Perullo: On July 11, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Dartmouth Police Department (Department) requesting 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, Maria Paula Rojas. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On July 3, 2025, Ms. Rojas requested “[R]eport 25-321-AC and supplemental records regarding this incident.” Petition to assess fees – Municipalities The 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 or to charge in excess of $25 an hour for the provision of public 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. 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

Nicole Perullo SPR25/2019 Page 2 July 16, 2025 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 $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Petitions seeking a waiver of statutory limits to fees assessed to segregate and/or redact public records must be made within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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 permission “to charge a fee of $68.52 for the search and segregation charges associated with this request and response,” and provides the following information: [W]ith respect to the request, we have the following records: 1 report, 4 (four) body-worn camera videos, and 2 (two) fleet camera videos totaling approximately 104 (one hundred and four) minutes for the records requested. [Exemption (c): Officers computer screen, social security numbers, and license number(s) - This exemption applies to “personnel and medical files or information; also, any other materials or data relating to a specifically named

Nicole Perullo SPR25/2019 Page 3 July 16, 2025 individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” The records requested contain information which, if disclosed, would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Such information contains intimate details, and the privacy interests involved outweigh the public interests in the disclosure of that information. [E]xemption (f): Witness information - This exemption applies to “investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of the public view by law enforcement or any other investigatory officials; that 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.” The above requested records contain confidential witness information; therefore, redactions are appropriate to pre-serve the anonymity of voluntary witnesses. . . The disclosure of the names and other identifying information of victims, complainants and voluntary witnesses may deter other potential witnesses and citizens from providing information to law enforcement agencies in future investigations. Disclosure would so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public’s interest. . . . 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. Additionally, I encourage the parties to communicate further to enable the Department to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. When preparing a fee estimate for the provision of the requested records, the Department is advised to provide a detailed explanation to the requestor indicating why the estimated amount of time is necessary. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv) (requiring the amount of the fee must be reasonable). The Department must provide a response to Ms. Rojas within five business days of receipt of this determination. See 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(h)(4). Please note, Ms. Rojas 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).

Nicole Perullo SPR25/2019 Page 4 July 16, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Maria Paula Rojas