Deirdre Dailey v. Peabody, City of - Police Department (SPR 20252285)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 12, 2025 SPR25/2285 Sergeant Robert Faletra Peabody Police Department 6 Allens Lane Peabody, MA 01960 Dear Sergeant Faletra: On August 6, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Peabody Police Department (Department) requesting 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, Deidre Dailey. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On August 4, 2025, Deidre Dailey requested “[a]ll body worn camera footage [identified individuals], related to an incident involving officers from your dept. who broke [my] car window and conducted a search of [my] vehicle. The incident took place on 8/3/2025 from 5:25pm – 6:15pm, [I] am seeking this footage to better understand the circumstances of the encounter.” 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 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

Sergeant Robert Faletra SPR25/2285 Page 2 August 12, 2025 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 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). Petition to Assess Fees In its petition, the Department requests permission “to charge the following fees associated with the segregation and redaction of the requested records.” The Department provides the following information in support of its petition: [We] have identified 5 body camera videos related to this request. The total length of the videos is 55 minutes 44 seconds. [T]he Department is required to make certain redactions to these records in

Sergeant Robert Faletra SPR25/2285 Page 3 August 12, 2025 accordance with Massachusetts Public Records Laws. The redactions include audio and visual components of these videos that apply to Public Records Law Exemptions A and C. Exemption A specifically identifies any records divulging the name, faces, addresses, phone numbers, social security numbers, drivers licenses and any other information that specifically identifies an individual. Exemption C specifically applies to “personnel and medical files” or information and any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual. 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. 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). Fee in Excess of $25.00 per Hour In its petition, the Department requests to charge a fee “at $54.17 per hour for a total fee of $609.41.” The Department provides the following in support of its request to charge fees in excess of $25.00 per hour: [T]he 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. 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 assessing a fee in excess of $25.00 per hour. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). However, this allowance is limited to $54.17 per hour. Conclusion Accordingly, 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 and segregation or by assessing a fee in excess of $25.00 per hour. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). In light of the factors in G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv), I find the Department may assess a fee limited to $54.17 per hour for the detailed tasks. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Further, this office encourages

Sergeant Robert Faletra SPR25/2285 Page 4 August 12, 2025 Deidre Dailey and the Department to continue to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii). Please note, Deidre Dailey 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: Deidre Dailey