Jeff Ellis v. Dartmouth, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20253181)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 31, 2025 SPR25/3181 Nicole Perullo Police Clerk Dartmouth Police Department 1390 Tucker Road Dartmouth, MA 02747 Dear Ms. Perullo: On October 29, 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, Jeff Ellis. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On October 29, 2025, Mr. Ellis requested, “[p]olice body camera footage from October 27, 2004, and November 24, 2024, as a response to a noise complaint coming from . . . Hancock St, North Dartmouth.” 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 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). 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 SPR25/3181 Page 2 October 31, 2025 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). Petition to Assess Fees In its October 29, 2025 petition, the Department seeks permission to assess a fee for “certain redactions to [the] records in accordance with the Public Records Law” and indicates that it will assess an hourly rate of $23.58, the rate of the “[t]he lowest paid [Department] employee who has the necessary skill to complete the search and segregation[.]” In support of its request, the Department additionally states the following: With respect to the request, we have the following records: 9 (nine) body-worn camera videos totaling approximately 50 (fifty) minutes for the records requested. . . . [W]e will be required to make certain redactions to those records in accordance with the Public Records Law. Exemption (c): Officers computer screen, social security numbers, and license number(s) . . . which, if disclosed, would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. . . . Exemption (f): Witness information - The above requested records contain

Nicole Perullo SPR25/3181 Page 3 October 31, 2025 confidential witness information; therefore, redactions are appropriate to pre- serve the anonymity of voluntary witnesses. . . . 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. . . . 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. I encourage the parties to communicate further to enable the Department to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. Please note, Mr. Ellis 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: Jeff Ellis