Debra Silveira v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20253191)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 13, 2025 SPR25/3191 Christine O’Donnell, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel Office of the Legal Advisor Boston Police Department One City Hall Square Boston, MA 02201 Dear Attorney O’Donnell: I have received the petition of Debra Silveira appealing the response of the Boston Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On April 7, 2025, Ms. Silveira requested “all emails and materials relivant to or from/Received by the following mentioned individuals [sic]” and included a list of four named individuals. On April 8, 2025, Ms. Silveira modified the scope of her request, explaining that she is “looking for emails both to and from and also pertaining to. From November 2018 till current. If a simple search was run I’d be satisfied with whatever the outcome.” In further correspondence with the Department from May 13, through June 2, 2025, Ms. Silveira narrowed her request to “the individual emails (1,807) without attachments.” The Department provided numerous responses, and assigned reference number B000995- 040725 to this request. Unsatisfied with the Department’s responses, Ms. Silveira petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/3191, was opened as a result. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). “Public records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency or municipality of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. 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. SPR25/3191 Page 2 November 13, 2025 Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. If there are any fees associated with a response, a written good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. 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). Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Silveira states the following: I was quoted close to a thousand dollars which I paid for the estimate, then I received an apology that they were unable able to give me the records and would issue a full refund and now iv been ghosted and would like my money back. If you would kindly assit in helping me receive my refund I was promised that would be greatly appreciated. [sic] Additionally, she states that “[m]y preference is to receive the records that I requested and paid for.”

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/3191 Page 3 November 13, 2025 Fee Waivers G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(v) provides the following with respect to waiving a fee for the production of responsive records: the records access officer may waive or reduce the amount of any fee charged under this subsection upon a showing that disclosure of a requested record is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requestor, or upon a showing that the requestor lacks the financial ability to pay the full amount of the reasonable fee. Please be advised, although the Supervisor may encourage fees to be waived, the Supervisor may not mandate that a records access officer waive fees assessed for complying with a public records request; rather, as described above, the records access officer may waive or reduce the amount of any fee upon a showing of various factors. See G. L. c. 66, § 10 (d)(v); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2)(k). The Department’s Fee Estimates In its April 22, 2025 response, the Department stated that it possesses “1,807 individual email and attachment items (total of 31,099 pages)” responsive to the request, and provided a total fee estimate of $12,907.91. Following further correspondence, Ms. Silveira narrowed her request to “the individual emails (1,807) without attachments,” and in its June 2, 2025 response, the City provided a revised fee estimate of $982.08, and indicated that “there are 2,477 pages” responsive to the revised request. Subsequently, I understand that Ms. Silveira paid the fees on June 20, 2025. Where Ms. Silveira has paid the fees, I find it unnecessary to opine on any issues relating to the reasonableness of the Department’s April 22nd and June 2nd fee estimates. Consequently, I will address the Department’s claims for withholding the responsive records. The Department’s July 23rd Response In its July 23, 2025 response, the Department states that it is withholding responsive records pursuant to G. L. c. 41, § 97D, as it operates through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). In its response, the Department cites G. L. c. 41, § 97D, which provides in relevant part: All reports of rape and sexual assault or attempts to commit such offenses, all reports of abuse perpetrated by family or household members, as defined in section 1 of chapter 209A, and all communications between police officers and

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/3191 Page 4 November 13, 2025 victims of such offenses or abuse shall not be public reports and shall be maintained by the police departments in a manner that shall assure their confidentiality; provided, however, that all such reports shall be accessible at all reasonable times, upon written request, to: (i) the victim, the victim’s attorney, others specifically authorized by the victim to obtain such information, prosecutors and (ii) victim-witness advocates as defined in section 1 of chapter 258B, domestic violence victims’ counselors as defined in section 20K of chapter 233, sexual assault counselors as defined in section 20J of chapter 233, if such access is necessary in the performance of their duties; and provided further, that all such reports shall be accessible at all reasonable times, upon written, telephonic, facsimile or electronic mail request to law enforcement officers, district attorneys or assistant district attorneys and all persons authorized to admit persons to bail pursuant to section 57 of chapter 276 G. L. c. 41, § 97D. In its July 23rd response, under G. L. c. 41, § 97D, the Department argues the following: The Department is denying the remainder of your request under Exemption (a) because of G. L. c.41, §97D. This statute expressly states that records of this subject matter are not public. The Department does not have discretion to release these records and is prohibited from doing so pursuant to M.G.L. c. 41, § 97D. . . . The Department will refund your payment. In order for this, you must register with us as a vendor. . . . I apologize however, we don’t know what the records pertain to until we review them. Based on the information provided in the Department’s July 23rd response, it is unclear how all of the withheld emails constitute the type of records contemplated under G. L. c. 41, § 97D. The Department must clarify this. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Silveira with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Ms. Silveira may further appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/3191 Page 5 November 13, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Debra Silveira