Christian A. Williams v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20253313)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 18, 2025 SPR25/3313 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 November 10, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Boston Police Department (Department) seeking an extension of time to produce records and requesting permission to assess fees for time spent segregating and 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, Christian Williams, Esq. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On October 30, 2025, Attorney Williams requested “the internal affairs complaints/investigations, and related correspondence, statements of witnesses, police and incident reports filed against [twenty three identified] officers of the Boston Police Department[.]” It is my understanding that the Department assigned reference number R005851-103025 to this request. Petition for an Extension of Time Under the Public Records Law, upon a showing of good cause, the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) may grant a single extension to an agency not to exceed 20 business days and a single extension to a municipality not to exceed 30 business days. In determining whether there has been a showing of good cause, the Supervisor shall consider, but shall not be limited to considering: (i) the need to search for, collect, segregate or examine records; (ii) the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure; (iii) the capacity or the normal business hours of operation of the agency or municipality to produce the request without the extension; (iv) efforts undertaken by the agency or municipality in fulfilling the current request and previous requests; 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. SPR25/3313 Page 2 November 18, 2025 (v) whether the request, either individually or as part of a series of requests from the same requestor, is frivolous or intended to harass or intimidate the agency or municipality; and (vi) the public interest served by expeditious disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). If the Supervisor determines that the request is part of a series of contemporaneous requests that are frivolous or designed to intimidate or harass, and the requests are not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity, the Supervisor may grant a longer extension or relieve the agency or municipality of its obligation to provide copies of the records sought. Id. The filing of a petition does not affect the requirement that a Records Access Officer (RAO) must provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 36.06(4)(b). Request for Additional Time to Produce Responsive Records In its petition, the Department requests an extension of time and argues the following in support of its request: The Department estimates that it can redact and segregate these records at a rate of one page per minute, totaling 14.35 hours. Department staff also spent 29 hours locating the records responsive to this request. Discarding the first two hours, at the rate of $25 per hour, the fee for which the City requests approval is $1,033.75 for segregation and redaction of these case files pursuant to Exemption (c) and Exemption (f). Redaction and segregation is necessary to prudently complete the request. G.L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). …The amount of records that the Department needs to review creates an undue burden on the Department for the reasons stated herein. Subsequently, in an email to this office on November 17, 2025, the Department clarified that it seeks an extension of 30 business days. In light of the need to search for, collect, segregate or examine records, the Department has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iii). The Department is granted an extension of 30 business days. 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

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/3313 Page 3 November 18, 2025 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 $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Petitions seeking a waiver of statutory limits to fees assessed to segregate and/or redact public records must be made within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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. SPR25/3313 Page 4 November 18, 2025 Current Petition In its petition, in addition to charging for segregation and redaction required by law pursuant to Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law, the Department argues the following in support of its request to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (b), (c), (f) and (n): The Department is a law enforcement agency. It is the responsibility of the Department to prevent crimes, to examine crime data, to investigate crimes, and to allocate its resources in the interest of public safety. The Department’s business is public safety. The Department is committed to community policing to foster relationships, to build trust, and to improve the quality of life through the City of Boston. The Department is involved in emergency preparedness and in developing and implementing security and public safety measures. As a law enforcement agency, the majority of the Department’s records relate to highly sensitive matters. Many of the Department’s records contain privileged and exempt information such as intelligence and investigative data, security related information, personnel, and information related solely to internal personnel rules and practices of government necessary to withhold to ensure proper performance of the Department. These categories of information are exempt under G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26 (a), (b), (c), (f), and (n) and are not subject to disclosure. This information must be segregated and redacted from the records. Portions of records responsive to your request may contain information that is exempt from disclosure. Until a review of the records is conducted it is not clear what if any exemptions may apply to permit or require redaction or withholding. The Department will likely need to redact information pursuant to Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. In addition to assessing fees for redaction under Exemption (a), the Department is requesting to assess fees for time to segregate, and redact the requested case files under Exemption (c) and Exemption (f). This redaction and segregation is necessary to prudently complete the request. G.L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Under 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. The Department will not be redacting the names of police officers but is petitioning to redact personal identifying information of voluntary witnesses.

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/3313 Page 5 November 18, 2025 An essential part of the investigatory process includes a dialogue between police departments, individual citizens and potential witnesses. Exemption (f) contemplates that individual citizens should be encouraged to come forward and speak freely with police concerning matters under investigation, and the creation of initiative that police officers might be completely candid in recording their observation, hypotheses and interim conclusions. See Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 354 N.E.2d 872 (1976). . . . Disclosing the identity of witnesses may discourage individuals from communicating with the police. If individuals and police departments are not able to communicate freely, the investigatory process will be harmed. Identifying citizens who participate in the investigatory process will have a chilling effect on future law enforcement efforts. To protect the confidentiality of individuals and to prevent a chilling effect of future law enforcement efforts, the Department would need to redact the names of civilian witnesses and statements because disclosure of this information would prejudice future law enforcement efforts; therefore, the disclosure of voluntary civilian witness names in these case files is not in the public interest. 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). Conclusion Accordingly, I find the Department has established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days as described above. 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. However, please note that this does not preclude the Department from charging for segregation and redaction that is required by law under Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Christian Williams, Esq.