Daryl Keyser v. Fall River, City of - Police Department (SPR 20253105)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 30, 2025 SPR25/3105 Lieutenant Matthew Mendes Office of Professional Standards Fall River Police Department 685 Pleasant Street Fall River, MA 02721 Dear Lieutenant Mendes: On October 23, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Fall River Police Department (Department) seeking permission to waive statutory limits on fees and 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, Daryl Keyser. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On October 20, 2025, Mr. Keyser requested the following records for the timeframe September 1, 2025 through the present, for the incident(s) involving [an identified individual] and any associated identifiers: [1] Body-worn camera (all involved officers; include pre-event and post-event buffers), in native format with metadata[;] [2] In-car/dash and rear-compartment video[;] [3] Station CCTV for sally port, booking, holding cells, report-writing areas, corridors, exterior cameras[;] [4] CAD radio/talkgroup console recordings[;] [5] CAD/RMS and Communications[;] [6] Full CAD incident histories, timestamps, disposition codes, and audit logs[;] [7] MDT messages, NCIC/LEAPS/Registry queries, hotsheet checks[;] [8] Emails, texts, and messaging-app communications (SMS, iMessage, Signal, WhatsApp, Teams, etc.) by involved officers/supervisors/command/RAO referencing [an identified individual] or the incident(s)[;] [9] Incident/offense/arrest reports; supplements/amendments/continuations; narratives; attachments; draft and final versions; version histories[;] [10] Officer notebooks, field interview cards, citation books; shift logs; duty rosters; watch commander logs[;] [11] Internal memoranda, after-action reviews, and supervisory approvals[;] 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

Lieutenant Matthew Mendes SPR25/3105 Page 2 October 30, 2025 [12] Property/evidence receipts and logs; chainof- custody; destruction authorizations[;] [13] RMS and CAD audit logs (create/modify/delete events with user IDs and timestamps)[;] [14] Vehicle GPS/AVL and geofencing records for involved units[;] [15] Policies in effect on the incident date(s): stops, arrests, citations, towing, searches, body-worn camera, in-car video, report writing, evidence handling[;] [16] Training records for involved personnel[;] [17] IA/ORM or citizen-complaint files related to these events[;] [18] Any Brady/Giglio notices or credibility determinations relevant to involved personnel[;] [19] RAO ticketing/correspondence logs, emails, drafts, fee worksheets, and communications with the DA/City Solicitor regarding requests related to [an identified individual] or these incidents[.] Please note that in an email to the Department and this office on October 23, 2025, Mr. Keyser objected to the Department’s petition. 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). 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).

Lieutenant Matthew Mendes SPR25/3105 Page 3 October 30, 2025 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 under Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law, the Department requests permission to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (b), (c), (f), (g) and (n) of the Public Records Law and argues the following in support of its request: 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, radio transmission, personnel files, employee disciplinary records, and incident reports under Exemption (b), Exemption (c), Exemption (f), Exemption (g), and Exemption (n). This redaction and segregation are necessary to prudently complete the request under G.L. c. 66, § 10 (d)(iv). Exemption (c)… these records contain personal identifiers, including names, dates of birth, facial images, medical information, and motor vehicle registration plates, all of which must be redacted prior to release. Said files are contained within all employee personnel files and the agency will be responsible for segregating such documents and records. Exemption (f), as articulated in Winters v. Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, protects from disclosure “investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of the public view,” the release of which could prejudice effective law enforcement, reveal confidential sources and/or witnesses, or disclose investigative techniques

Lieutenant Matthew Mendes SPR25/3105 Page 4 October 30, 2025 and procedures not otherwise known to the general public. Our department would need to redact the names of civilian witnesses and/or victims because disclosure of this information would prejudice future law enforcementefforts, litigation, and identifiable information; therefore, disclosure of the requested record is not in the public interest[.] Exemption (n)… These redactions are necessary to safeguard private information, prevent unwarranted intrusions into personal privacy, preserve the integrity of ongoing or potential investigations, mitigate the risk of identity theft or fraud, and comply with Public Records Law. 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). However, the Department is reminded that the current language of Exemption (c) prohibits its application to records related to law enforcement misconduct investigations. See G. L. c. 4, § (26)(c). Fees in Excess of $25.00 per Hour In its petition, the Department requests permission to charge a fee of $48.37 per hour for the responsive records that are not body worn camera footage and a rate $35.87 for the segregation and redaction of body worn camera footage. In support of its petition, the Department provides the following information: At this time, the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill to complete the search and segregation is [an identified] Sergeant whose hourly rate is $48.37 hr. This individual is the lowest paid employee in the Office of Professional Standards who has knowledge and training pertaining to Public Records Law exemptions, as well as data extraction, redaction software aptitude, and access to polices, rules & regulations, employee personnel files as well as disciplinary records. Furthermore, the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill to complete the segregation and redaction of Body Warn Camera (BWC) records, is [an identified] Detective whose normal hourly rate is $35.68 hr. This is because he is the only records access officer, with access to the BWC software system, and the lowest paid employee certified to understand the public records law within that position. The process of redacting body worn camera footage is technically demanding and requires specialized training in the Axon redaction platform. Axon’s software involves advanced tools for motion tracking, audio filtering, and pixel-based masking, all of which must be applied manually to ensure compliance with privacy laws. The knowledge and experience of performing these redactions falls solely on Detective Pavao. Each video must be reviewed frame by frame to

Lieutenant Matthew Mendes SPR25/3105 Page 5 October 30, 2025 identify and obscure sensitive material, including victims, witnesses, juveniles, and protected information. 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 $35.68 for segregation and redaction of 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, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the Department may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. Further, the Department may assess a fee limited to $35.87 per hour for the segregation and redaction of body worn camera footage. This office encourages Mr. Keyser and the Department to continue to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii). Mr. Keyser is advised that he may appeal the Department’s fee estimate within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Please note, Mr. Keyser 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, §§ 10A(c). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Daryl Keyser