Bay State Body Cam v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20252790)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 29, 2025 SPR25/2790 Christine O’Donnell, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel Boston Police Department 1 Schroeder Plaza Boston, MA 02120 Dear Attorney O’Donnell: On September 23, 2025, this office received your petition, on behalf of the Boston Police Department (Department) seeking an extension of time to produce records, permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records, a waiver of statutory limits on fees that may be assessed in responding to the request, and relief from the obligation to produce 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, Bay State Body Cam (requestor). G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). From September 10, 2025 through September 13, 2025, the requestor “filed 91 public records requests” seeking “incident reports and body worn camera videos.” In an email to this office and the Department on September 23, 2025, the requestor asks this office to “hold in abeyance any determinations and/or decisions relating to requests made to the Boston Police Department.” Petitions 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

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/2790 Page 2 September 29, 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) shall provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(b). Request for Additional Time to Produce Responsive Records In its petition, the Department requests an extension of time, and in an email to this office on September 26, 2025, the Department clarifies that it seeks an extension of 60 days. In its September 23, 2025 petition, the Department provides the following information in support of its request: The incident reports for these requests are 1,195 pages and the body worn camera video totals 202 hours. . . . There is a total of 202 hours of body worn camera footage. The requester stated that they are seeking the video of the primary officer or the arrest per incident. In order to determine which video shows the primary officer or arrest per incident, Department staff needs to review all 202 hours of video. At a rate of $55.96 per hour, this fee would be $11,303.92. Once the most relevant video is identified, Department staff need to make redactions. For every hour of body worn camera footage, it takes Department staff two hours to redact necessary material. This time used to be three hours; however, due to upgrades in redaction tools, Department staff are able to redact more quickly. For these requests, there are 107 incidents with videos averaging 30 minutes that show the primary officer or the arrest. Reviewing these videos will take Department staff 53.5 hours. I find that in light of the need to search for, collect, segregate and examine the records, the capacity of the Department to produce the request without the extension, and efforts undertaken by the Department in fulfilling the current requests, the Department has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iv). The Department is granted an extension of 30 business days.

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/2790 Page 3 September 29, 2025 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 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).

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/2790 Page 4 September 29, 2025 Current Petition to Assess Fees In its petition, the Department seeks to assess fees for the segregation and redaction of the responsive records. In support of its petition, the Department explains the following: The Department will likely need to redact information pursuant to Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. In addition to assessing fees for redaction under Exemption (a), the Department is requesting to assess fees for time to segregate, and redact requested body worn camera video and incident reports under Exemption (b), Exemption (c), Exemption (f), and Exemption (n). This redaction and segregation is necessary to prudently complete the request. G.L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). . . . Under Exemption (c), the Department will need to review and redact personal identifying information related to specific individuals in order to protect an unwarranted invasion of privacy. The Department would need to redact witness names, dates of birth, places of employment, home addresses, phone numbers, and other personal identifying information. While the public has a recognized interest in knowing whether public servants are carrying out their duties in a law- abiding and efficient manner, the public’s interest in obtaining the names of civilian witnesses and other identifying information does not substantially outweigh the seriousness of any invasion or privacy. . . . Under Exemption (f), the Department would need to redact the names of civilian witnesses because disclosure of this information would prejudice future law enforcement efforts; therefore, disclosure of the requested record is not in the public interest. . . . The Department has located incident reports responsive to these requests. The incident reports total 1,195 pages. As explained previously, the Department needs to review these reports and redact personal identifying information related to specific individuals in order to protect an unwarranted invasion of privacy. The Department would need to redact witness names, dates of birth, places of employment, home addresses, phone numbers, and other personal identifying information. While the public has a recognized interest in knowing whether public servants are carrying out their duties in a law-abiding and efficient manner, the public’s interest in obtaining the names of civilian witnesses and other identifying information does not substantially outweigh the seriousness of any invasion or privacy. Under Exemption (f), the Department would need to redact the names of civilian witnesses because disclosure of this information would prejudice future law enforcement efforts; therefore, disclosure of the requested record is not in the public interest. The Department estimates that it can redact and segregate these records at a rate of one page per minute, totaling 19.19 hours. Discarding the first two hours, at the rate of $25 per hour, the fee for which the [Department] requests approval is $447.91 for segregation and redaction of these incident reports

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/2790 Page 5 September 29, 2025 pursuant to Exemption (b), Exemption (c), Exemption (f), and Exemption (n). Redaction and segregation is necessary to prudently complete the request. G.L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). 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 requests 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. Fee in Excess of $25.00 per Hour In its petition, the Department states the following concerning its request to charge a fee in excess of $25.00 per hour: The Department asks the Supervisor to permit the Department to assess a fee for the provision of records responsive to these requests and to assess a fee of more than $25.00 per hour to search for and segregate records. The Department believes that these requests are for a commercial purpose. Department staff with expertise in internal policies and public records law are needed to review, segregate, and redact the records. Department staff must review the videos to determine responsiveness and oftentimes has to watch several different videos to see which applies to the specifics of the request. For the responsive videos, Department staff needs to review each video to see if any exemptions apply and make redactions which may include but are not limited to facial blurs of witnesses and victims; muting personal identifying information and statements; blurring notes and MDT screens; and, listening to radio background to ensure that no addresses are released to the public that are of a private nature. The Department is responsible for maintaining extensive confidential information. The Department has an obligation to ensure that information protected from disclosure is not disseminated. The Department is requesting permission to charge $55.96 per hour for review of the body worn camera footage. This is the hourly rate of Department staff that has the expertise to review and redact the videos. There is a total of 202 hours of body worn camera footage. The requester stated that they are seeking the video of the primary officer or the arrest per incident. In order to determine which video shows the primary officer or arrest per incident, Department staff needs to review all 202 hours of video. I find the Department has met its burden to explain how, given the nature of the responsive records, the requests could not prudently be completed without assessing a fee in excess of $25.00 per hour. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). I find the Department may assess a fee limited to $55.96 per hour for search, segregation, and redaction of the body worn camera footage.

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/2790 Page 6 September 29, 2025 Request for Relief In its petition, the Department argues the following: The Department asks the Supervisor to consider relieving the Department of its obligation to provide copies of the records sought. G.L. c. 66, §10(c). The Department believes that these requests are for commercial purposes. This petition involves 91 requests from the same requester. These requests are contemporaneous requests that are frivolous or are 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. Id. These requests create an undue burden on the Department. Based on the information provided in the Department’s petition, I find that the Department has not demonstrated that the requests are frivolous and not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity, as required by G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). Conclusion Accordingly, I find the Department has established good cause for a time extension of 30 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, as described above, the Department may assess a fee limited to $55.96 per hour for search, segregation, and redaction of the body worn camera footage. This office encourages the requestor and the Department to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification to the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably). Any subsequent fee estimate from the Department must be made in compliance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii) and G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Please note, the requestor 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).

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/2790 Page 7 September 29, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Bay State Body Cam