Denatia Dunn v. Dartmouth, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20253653)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 17, 2025 SPR25/3653 Nicole Perullo Police Clerk Dartmouth Police Department 1390 Tucker Road Dartmouth, MA 02747 Dear Ms. Perullo: On December 11, 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, Denatia Dunn. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On December 1, 2025, Mr. Dunn requested: [1] All reports, incident logs, and call notes involving [an identified individual] or the third party contacted on April 17, 2025[;] [2] Any communications between Dartmouth Police and Macy’s loss prevention regarding this accusation[;] [3] Any surveillance images provided to the police that were claimed to identify [an identified individual][;] [4] Body-worn camera footage, cruiser footage, or dispatch audio related to the accusation[;] [5] Officer names and badge numbers involved in this mistaken-identity event[;] On December 2, 2025, Ms. Dunn modified Item 2 of her request and sought, “emails, phone call logs, radio or dispatch notes, internal notes, reports, written messages, voice messages, and any correspondence documenting interactions or information exchanged between Dartmouth Police and Macy’s loss prevention and the Dartmouth Police Department and [an 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 SPR25/3653 Page 2 December 17, 2025 identified individual] regarding the accusation made against [an identified individual] on or around April 17, 2025.” 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). 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

Nicole Perullo SPR25/3653 Page 3 December 17, 2025 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). Commercial Purpose In its December 11th petition, the Department stated, “[i]n furtherance of this petition, we further state that the request is for a commercial purpose and/or the fee represents an actual and good faith representation to comply with the request...” Please be advised that the term “commercial purpose” as used in the Public Records Law shall mean: the sale or resale of any portion of the public record or the use of information from the public record to advance the requester’s strategic business interests in a manner that the requester can reasonably expect to make a profit, and shall not include gathering or reporting news or gathering information to promote citizen oversight or further the understanding of the operation or activities of government or for academic, scientific, journalistic or public research or education. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ix). Based on the information provided by the Department, it is unclear how the request would meet the statutory definition of “commercial purpose” within the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ix); see also SPR20/2599 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 5, 2021). Specifically, the Department has not shown that the public records will be sold, or resold, or used to advance the requestor’s strategic business interest. Current Petition In its petition, the Department requests permission to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (c), and (f) of the Public Records Law: With respect to the request, we have the following records: report 25-661-OF, call log 25-6334, 117 (one hundred and seventeen) emails that could be responsive to the request, 1 (one) radio transmission recording totaling approximately 6 (six) minutes, and 1 (one) body camera video for report 25-661-OF totaling approximately 44 (Forty-four) minutes for the records requested. Exemption (c): Officers computer screen, social security numbers, and license number(s)… The records requested contain information which, if disclosed, would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Such information

Nicole Perullo SPR25/3653 Page 4 December 17, 2025 contains intimate details, and the privacy interests involved outweigh the public interests in the disclosure of that information. Exemption (f): Witness information…The above requested records contain confidential witness information; therefore, redactions are appropriate to preserve 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. Disclosure would so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public’s interest. …Due to the length of each body-worn camera video and radio transmission recording (approximately totaling 50 minutes) we will view each video in its entirety to assess what will need to be redacted. Once viewed, audio redactions will be required for any audio/background audio (i.e., radio transmission). We will then view the video and make any necessary video redactions (i.e., officer’s notebook). The video(s) will then be replayed to ensure all necessary audio and video redactions were made according to M.G.L c 66 § 10. At this time, we would make any additional redactions that were missed during the previous viewings. Once additional redactions are made, we will view the video(s) for a final review. 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 segregation or redaction. To the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the Department may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. Please note, Ms. Dunn 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: Denatia Dunn