Jessica L. LaClair v. Department of State Police (SPR 20253709)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 23, 2025 SPR25/3709 Allison Mondello Public Records Manager Massachusetts Department of State Police 470 Worcester Road Framingham, MA 01702 Dear Ms. Mondello: On December 16, 2025, this office received the petition of Alyssa Gough, on behalf of the Department of State Police (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, Jessica LaClair, Esq. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On December 9, 2025, Attorney LaClair requested “[a]ll body worn camera footage and cruiser mounted camera footage concerning [an identified] incident[.]” Please note that in an email to the Department and this office on December 16, 2025, Attorney LaClair objected to the Department’s petition. Petition to Assess Fees – Agencies A fee shall not assessed for time spent segregating or redacting records unless such segregation or redaction is required by law or approved by the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) under a petition. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). 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 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

Allison Mondello SPR25/3709 Page 2 December 23, 2025 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 $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Petitions seeking a waiver of statutory limits to fees assessed to segregate and/or redact public records must be made within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Fee Estimates – Agencies An agency may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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). Agencies may not assess a fee for the first four (4) hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ii). Where appropriate, agencies 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. Current Petition In its petition, the Department requests permission to charge fees for segregation and redaction of the responsive records, and argues the following in support of its request: In researching the portion of this request relating to supplemental records, the Department conducted preliminary searches of Department body-worn and cruiser-mounted videos. This search resulted in at least 8 videos. As such, to respond to this portion of the request, the Department would be tasked with reviewing a minimum of 8 videos. The Massachusetts State Police is a law enforcement agency with various missions ranging from public safety and criminal justice, to homeland security and emergency preparedness, a large percentage of department and records may relate to highly sensitive matters. Further, given our office’s and our agencies’ collaboration with other state and federal agencies on criminal investigations and other matters regarding state and national security, the resulting records

Allison Mondello SPR25/3709 Page 3 December 23, 2025 undoubtedly contain privileged and exempt information such as intelligence and investigative data, personnel, private, and security related information, as well as information related solely to internal personnel rules and practices of government necessary to withhold to ensure the proper performance of the Massachusetts State Police. These categories of information are specifically exempt pursuant to G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26 (a), (b), (c), (f), and/or (n) and are not subject to public disclosure. Accordingly, the information must be segregated and redacted from the records before the records are produced to a third party such as the requestor. As a state agency with the responsibility for maintaining extensive confidential information, the Massachusetts State Police has an obligation to ensure proper procedures are maintained to prevent the dissemination of information which is protected from disclosure by law. Fulfilling such an obligation requires a careful review and segregation of records intended for disclosure. As you are no doubt aware, segregation and redaction of records, including email messages and responsive attachments, often involves the application of multiple exemptions to the public records law to a single video. Some information is simultaneously protected by more than one exemption or different exemptions depending on context or the time of disclosure. Moreover, a review of each of these videos would be required to determine if an exemption applies. Given the nature of Department videos and the format in which they are produced, segregation and required redactions are typically completed simultaneously as a review of each video is necessary for both processes. The Department’s good faith estimate is based on prior requests where segregation and redaction were completed on a video-by-video basis and not as separate processes. Separating the process of segregation from redaction would be burdensome on the Department, preclude the efficient processing of requests, and increase the hours necessary to fulfil a request. In light of the Department’s 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 redaction or segregation. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). To the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the Department may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of such exempt material. 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. Please note, Attorney LaClair 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).

Allison Mondello SPR25/3709 Page 4 December 23, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jessica LaClair, Esq. Alyssa Gough