Lauren Hughes v. Dartmouth, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20252869)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 6, 2025 SPR25/2869 Nicole Perullo Police Clerk Dartmouth Police Department 1390 Tucker Road Dartmouth, MA 02747 Dear Ms. Perullo: On September 30, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Dartmouth 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, Lauren Hughes, Esq., of Boyle Shaughnessy Law. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On September 24, 2025, Attorney Hughes requested “[a]ny and all documents or records of any kind in your possession, custody, or control pertaining to the incident that occurred at the intersection of Alpha Street and Sharp Street in Dartmouth Massachusetts on April 22, 2024 involving [an identified individual].” Specifically Attorney Hughes sought: [1] [A]ny and all logs, run sheets, call recordings, and other documents and materials[;] [2] [A]ll photographs taken, generated or otherwise obtained[;] [3] [A]ll videos from cruiser cameras and/or body cameras taken, generated or otherwise obtained[;] [4] [A]ll reports, citations, notes, memorandum, correspondence, email or other paperwork and/or documents generated or otherwise obtained during[;] [5] [A]ll evidence taken from the scene[;] [6] [A]ll statements taken from any person associated with the incident[;] [7] [A]ll 911 calls, transcripts and/or tapes generated as a result of, or in connection of the incident. 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 SPR25/2869 Page 2 October 6, 2025 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). 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).

Nicole Perullo SPR25/2869 Page 3 October 6, 2025 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). Commercial Purpose In its September 30th petition, the Department stated, “[i]n furtherance of this petition, we further state that the request is for a commercial purpose and/or the fee represents an actual and good faith representation to comply with the request...” Please be advised that the term “commercial purpose” as used in the Public Records Law shall mean: the sale or resale of any portion of the public record or the use of information from the public record to advance the requester’s strategic business interests in a manner that the requester can reasonably expect to make a profit, and shall not include gathering or reporting news or gathering information to promote citizen oversight or further the understanding of the operation or activities of government or for academic, scientific, journalistic or public research or education. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ix). Based on the information provided by the Department, it is unclear how the request would meet the statutory definition of “commercial purpose” within the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ix); see also SPR20/2599 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 5, 2021). Specifically, the Department has not shown that the public records will be sold, or resold, or used to advance the requestor’s strategic business interest. Current Petition In its petition, the Department requests permission to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law: Exemption (c): Telephone numbers, security numbers, and license number(s)… 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 involves outweigh the public interests in the disclosure of that information. Exemption (f): Witness and victim information… The above requested records contain confidential witness information; therefore, redactions are appropriate to preserve the anonymity of voluntary witnesses. This exemption is also intended to allow investigative officials to provide an assurance of confidentiality to private citizens so that they will speak openly and voluntarily about such matters. Any and all information contained in a witness statement and/or within the

Nicole Perullo SPR25/2869 Page 4 October 6, 2025 investigation involving said voluntary witnesses, which if disclosed would create a grave risk of directly or indirectly identifying the voluntary witness who is subject to withholding. 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. Please note, Attorney Hughes 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: Lauren Hughes, Esq.