Christian A. Williams v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20253806)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 8, 2026 SPR25/3806 Christine O’Donnell, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel Office of the Legal Advisor Boston Police Department 1 City Hall Square Boston, MA 02201 Dear Attorney O’Donnell: I have received the petition of Christian A. Williams, Esq. 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 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[.]” The Department initially responded on November 10, 2025, providing a fee estimate. It is my understanding that the Department assigned reference number R005851-103025 to this request. Previous Petition This request was the subject of a previous petition from the Department. See SPR25/3313 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 18, 2025). In my November 18th determination, I found that the Department had established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days. However, given the public interest served by limiting the cost of public access to the requested records, I was unable to grant permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records. The Department subsequently responded on December 23, 2025, clarifying its previous fee estimate. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Attorney Williams petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3806, was opened as a result. 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. SPR25/3806 Page 2 January 8, 2026 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). The Department’s December 23rd Response In its December 23, 2025 response, the Department clarified its $1,033.75 fee estimate to provide the response records. In support of its fee estimate, the Department provided the following information: The Department located case files totaling 861 pages and staff spent 29 hours to locate the records. The Department provided you with a fee estimate on November 10, 2025… The Department did not receive permission to charge fees for segregation and redaction pursuant to Exemption (c) and Exemption (f); however, in the determination, the Supervisor states that the Department is not precluded from charging for segregation and redaction that is required by law under Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law… Because the Department needs to review all of the requested records to segregate or redact any record or portion of a record that is prohibited from disclosure by statute, the Department believes that the fee estimate of $1,033.75 is reasonable for the reasons provided herein. The Department is required to remove information under G. L. c.41, §97D… This statute protects Department records relating to sexual assault and domestic violence in their entirety. As such, any and all reports of sexual assault and domestic violence are not deemed public and are protected by the Department in a manner that assures their confidentiality, pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 41, §97D… The

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/3806 Page 3 January 8, 2026 Department is prohibited from releasing Criminal Offender Record Information (“CORI”). The Department is prohibited from disclosing CORI records under the Public Records Law because of G.L. c. 6, §172 and such a request is not a public record under G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). The Department must also review the records for attorney-client privileged communications… 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. In total, the Department spent 43.35 hours conducting a search for records. 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… The Department would be happy to work with you to narrow your request… Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Attorney Williams stated, “I wish to appeal the proposed fee suggested by the City of Boston. Additionally, I wish to appeal the contention that requested records are subject to being withheld pursuant to CARI [sic] laws.” 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 Although the Department states that it would take 43.35 hours to produce and redact the responsive records, it is unclear why the Department requires this much time. In this case, the Department clarified it possesses 861 pages of responsive records and has explained how much time is needed to segregate and/or redact under the law. The Department has also confirmed it is not charging a fee for the first two hours of employee time. However, the Department must

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/3806 Page 4 January 8, 2026 provide additional explanation of why 29 hours of search time is required and describe the task(s) involved in the search process. The Department’s fee estimate also lacks confirmation that the rate of $25 per hour is the lowest paid employee who is capable of performing the task(s). Accordingly, the Department must provide further details regarding its fee estimate. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv) (requiring the amount of the fee be reasonable). For the reasons discussed above, I find the Department must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee estimate of $1,033.75 is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). With regard to Attorney Williams’ objections regarding the Department’s claims under CORI, please be advised that where the Department has yet to produce the records, I find these matters cannot be addressed at this time, as the contents of these records are unclear. Once records are provided, Attorney Williams may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety calendar days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). This office encourages Attorney Williams and the Department to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Attorney Williams may wish to narrow his 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 Attorney Williams 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. Attorney Williams 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: Christian A. Williams, Esq.