Jaehyun Kim v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20252979)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 20, 2025 SPR25/2979 Christine O’Donnell, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel Office of the Legal Advisor Boston Police Department 1 Schroeder Plaza Boston, MA 02120 Dear Attorney O’Donnell: On October 10, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Boston Police Department (Department) requesting permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records and a waiver of statutory limits to 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, Jaehyun Kim. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On October 2, 2025, Jaehyun Kim requested, [a]ccess to all Internal Affairs Division records arising from complaints, investigations, or findings involving the following individuals and institutions, from August 1, 2021 to the present: . . . [t]his request includes but is not limited to: Complaints naming or involving the above individuals. Internal Affairs investigation in which these individuals are complainants, respondents, witnesses, or otherwise referenced. Disciplinary findings, outcomes, or dispositions of such investigations. Correspondence related to Internal Affairs matters that references these individuals. 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). 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. SPR25/2979 Page 2 October 20, 2025 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. 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).

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/2979 Page 3 October 20, 2025 Current Petition In its petition, the Department requests permission “to assess fees for time to segregate, and redact requested body worn camera video and incident reports under Exemption (c) and Exemption (f).” In support of its request, the Department provides the following information: [T]he Department has located files responsive to this request. There are a total of 15 files. Detective Anjos has 7 cases; Detective Pires has 3 cases; Detective Texeira has 1 case; Sgt. Det. Geogheghan has 4 cases; and, Sgt. Det. Davis does not have any cases. [U]nder 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. [U]nder 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. Conclusion Given the public interest served by limiting the cost of public access to the requested records, I am unable to grant permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records. Please note, this does not preclude the Department from charging for segregation and redaction that is required by law at $25.00 per hour. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jaehyun Kim