Lia Lynn v. Peabody, City of - Police Department (SPR 20253592)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 17, 2025 SPR25/3592 Robert Faletra Sergeant Peabody Police Department 6 Allens Way Peabody, MA 01960 Dear Sergeant Faletra: I have received the petition of Lia Lynn appealing the response of the Peabody 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 November 26, 2025, Ms. Lynn requested “all records related to police responses and calls for service involving [an identified] unit on the following dates: November 22, 2025 (approximately 11:00 p.m. noise complaint involving children); November 26, 2025 (approximately 5:30 – 7:00 a.m. disturbance and noise complaint – falsely accused)[.]” The Department responded on December 3, 2025, providing a fee estimate. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. Lynn petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3592, was opened as a result. Previous Petition This request was the subject of a December 4, 2025 petition from the Department. See SPR25/3572 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 11, 2025). In my December 11th determination, I found the Department could assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of exempt material under Exemption (c) and could assess a fee limited to $54.17 per hour for the segregation and redaction of the responsive body worn camera footage. Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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). 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

Robert Faletra SPR25/3592 Page 2 December 17, 2025 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). The Department’s December 3rd Response In its December 3, 2025 response, the Department assessed a fee of $541.70 to provide the responsive records. In support of its fee estimate, the Department provided the following information: We have identified 5 body camera videos related to this request. The total length of the videos is 48 minutes. The department is required to make certain redactions to these records in accordance with Massachusetts Public Records Laws. The redactions include audio and visual components of these videos that apply to Public Records Law Exemptions A and C. Exemption A specifically identifies any records divulging the name, faces, addresses, phone numbers, social security numbers, drivers licenses and any other information that specifically identifies an individual. Exemption C specifically applies to “personnel and medical files” or information and any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual. These records include names, dates of birth, faces, medical information, and motor vehicle plates. The disclosure may reveal private information, unwanted intrusions, and may increase the risk of theft or identity fraud. The redactions of the videos need to be done frame by frame which includes 30 frames per recorded second and 1800 frames per recorded minute. The average time needed to redact per minute of recorded video is 15 work minutes. With a total of 48 minutes of recorded video this will require 12 hours of work. In order to make these redactions we are required to devote more than two hours of time to search for, compile, segregate, redact and/or reproduce the requested records. The Peabody Police Department is required not to charge a fee to a requester for up to two work hours of work. However, for the additional work time we will be seeking a fee from the requester for 10 hours. The lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill to complete the segregation and redaction of these records is [an identified individual]. This is due to the fact

Robert Faletra SPR25/3592 Page 3 December 17, 2025 that the Body Worn Camera system has two administrators in the department including [two identified individuals] who are the sole employees responsible for the administrative work in the Body Worn Camera program. Furthermore, the administrative access that a Body Worn Camera administrator has limits the employees allowed to manage and view this sensitive information. These officers have specialized training and security clearances to manage, maintain, and secure the digital files associated with the department body cameras. For the department to allow an employee of lower rank/pay access would violate our department policy. The normal hourly rate for [an identified individual is $54.17 per hour. The total amount of time the department is seeking a fee is 10 hours at $54.17 per hour for a total fee of $541.70. This fee represents an actual and good faith representation to comply with the request, the fee is necessary, the amount of the fee is reasonable and the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. This is based upon the time needed to properly redact these records in order to provide them to the requester. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Lynn requested a fee waiver, stating, “…this charge is excessive and inconsistent with the intent of the Massachusetts Public Records Law.” 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). Reasonableness of the Fee Estimate In this case, the Department has confirmed that it is not assessing a fee for the first two hours of employee time, and appear not to be charging a fee for search time. In addition, permission to assess a fee to segregate and redact exempt information under Exemption (c) of the

Robert Faletra SPR25/3592 Page 4 December 17, 2025 Public Records Law and to assess a fee limited to $54.17 per hour for the segregation and redaction of the responsive body worn camera footage has been approved by the Supervisor of Records in SPR25/3572. However, although the Department has identified responsive five body camera videos with a total of 48 minutes of recorded video, and explained in detail the process by which the material is reviewed and redacted, the Department has not explained which statutes under Exemption (a) permit the Department’s redactions as required by law. Pursuant to the Public Records Law, a fee may 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)(ii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). Consequently, the Department must clarify which statutes apply to the Department’s redactions under Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. For the reasons discussed above, I find the Department must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee estimate of $541.70 is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). This office encourages Ms. Lynn and the Department to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Ms. Lynn may wish to narrow her request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the municipality to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Any revision to the request would result in the requirement to issue a revised fee estimate. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Lynn 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. Lynn may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Lia Lynn