Dorothy Zayas v. Peabody, City of - Police Department (SPR 20252232)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 4, 2025 SPR25/2232 Captain Douglas Marcus Administrative Commander Peabody Police Department 6 Allens Way Peabody, MA 01960 Dear Captain Marcus: On July 30, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Peabody Police Department (Department) seeking an extension of time to produce records, permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records and a waiver of statutory limits on fees that may be assessed in responding to the request. 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, Dorothy Zayas. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On July 16, 2025, Ms. Zayas requested: [1] [A]ll reports filed since 2021- complaints, incidents and break-ins[;] [2] [B]ody-cam footage from any involvements[.] Petition for an Extension of Time Under the Public Records Law, upon a showing of good cause, the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) may grant a single extension to an agency not to exceed 20 business days and a single extension to a municipality not to exceed 30 business days. In determining whether there has been a showing of good cause, the Supervisor shall consider, but shall not be limited to considering: (i) the need to search for, collect, segregate or examine records; (ii) the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure; (iii) the capacity or the normal business hours of operation of the agency or municipality to produce the request without the extension; (iv) efforts undertaken by the agency or municipality in fulfilling the current request and previous requests; 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

Captain Douglas Marcus SPR25/2232 Page 2 August 4, 2025 (v) whether the request, either individually or as part of a series of requests from the same requestor, is frivolous or intended to harass or intimidate the agency or municipality; and (vi) the public interest served by expeditious disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). If the Supervisor determines that the request is part of a series of contemporaneous requests that are frivolous or designed to intimidate or harass, and the requests are not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity, the Supervisor may grant a longer extension or relieve the agency or municipality of its obligation to provide copies of the records sought. Id. The filing of a petition does not affect the requirement that a Records Access Officer (RAO) must provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 36.06(4)(b). Request for Additional Time to Produce Responsive Records In its petition, the Department requests an extension of 15 business days and argues the following in support of its request: The redactions of the videos need to be done frame by frame which includes 30 frames per recorded second and 1800 frames per recorded minute. The average time needed to redact per minute of recorded video is 15 work minutes. With a total of 37 recorded video minutes this will require approximately 9 hours and 15 minutes of redaction work. Peabody Police Department is requesting a 15 day time extension in order to segregate and redact this request. In light of the need to collect, segregate and examine the records, the Department has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iii). The Department is granted an extension of 15 business days. 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).

Captain Douglas Marcus SPR25/2232 Page 3 August 4, 2025 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 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; 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). Petition to Assess Fees In its petition, in addition to charging for segregation and redaction required by law pursuant to Exemption (a), the Department requests to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemption (c) and provides the following information in support of its request:

Captain Douglas Marcus SPR25/2232 Page 4 August 4, 2025 These records include names, dates of birth, faces, medical information, and motor vehicle plates. The disclosure may reveal private information, unwanted intrusions, and may increase the risk of theft or identity fraud. 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. Fees in Excess of $25.00 per Hour In its petition, the Department requests to charge a fee of $54.17 per hour, and provides the following in support of its request: The lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill to complete the segregation and redaction of these records is Sergeant Robert Faletra. This is due to the fact that the Body Worn Camera system has two administrators in the department including Sergeant Robert Faletra and Captain Douglas Marcus who are the sole employees responsible for the administrative work in the Body Worn Camera program. Furthermore, the administrative access that a Body Worn Camera administrator has limits the employees allowed to manage and view this sensitive information. These officers have specialized training and security clearances to manage, maintain, and secure the digital files associated with the department body cameras. For the department to allow an employee of lower rank/pay access would violate our department policy. In light of the Department’s petition, I find the Department has partially met its burden to explain how, given the nature of the responsive records, the request could not prudently be completed without assessing a fee in excess of $25.00 per hour. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). The Department may assess an hourly rate limited to $54.17 for the segregation and redaction of the responsive body worn camera footage. However, the Department may not assess a fee in excess of $25.00 per hour for other tasks. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Conclusion Accordingly, I find the Department has established good cause for a time extension of 15 business days as described above. Additionally to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information described above, the Department may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. Further, while the Department may assess a fee limited to the hourly rate of $54.17 for the redaction of body worn camera footage, the Department may not assess a fee in excess of $25.00 for other tasks.

Captain Douglas Marcus SPR25/2232 Page 5 August 4, 2025 Please note, Ms. Zayas 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: Dorothy Zayas