Revelles, Francisco v. Malden, City of (SPR 20260119)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 21, 2026 SPR26/0119 Joanne Perperian Records Access Officer City of Malden 215 Pleasant Street Malden, MA 02148 Dear Ms. Perperian: On January 13, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the City of Malden (City) seeking an extension of time to produce records and 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 City furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Francisco Revelles. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On December 26, 2025, Mr. Revelles made a public records request, which he subsequently narrowed on January 9, 2026, seeking the following: [1] December 25, 2025 incident report request (22:19): Please confirm status and anticipated production date for the Incident Report (IR) and the associated CAD/dispatch record for the December 25, 2025 nighttime response at …Lyle Terrace (22:19), involving [an identified officer]. If more than one CAD entry exists for that address/date, please include each responsive CAD/dispatch record. [2] Body-worn camera (BWC) – narrowed to “on-scene only” segments: For each BWC item below, I am narrowing the request to footage/audio beginning when the officer arrives on scene at/near …Lyle Terrace and ending when the officer departs the scene (excluding driving time, unrelated staging, and any nonresponsive gaps). If the system permits clipping by timestamp, please produce only the responsive segments. [A] Aug. 5, 2025 – CAD #25038707 (Property retrieval / “Public Peace”)  Requested officer (Phase 1): [an identified officer] only 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

Joanne Perperian SPR26/0119 Page 2 January 21, 2026  Time window: approx. 09:12–09:28  If, after receiving [an identified officer’s] footage, I determine the second officer’s footage is necessary, I will request that as Phase 2. [B] Aug. 29, 2025 - CAD #25042870 (Court-authorized “Keep Peace,” cat retrieval)  Requested officer (Phase 1): [an identified officer] only  Time window: approx. 10:01–11:11  Same approach as above: I will request the second officer’s footage only if needed after review. [C] Aug. 16, 2025 – Court-authorized retrieval window (“Public Peace”)  Narrow request: any BWC recorded on-scene at/near …Lyle Terrace during the court-authorized retrieval window (10:00 AM-2:00 PM), limited to the period officers are at/near the address.  If you need a CAD number to locate this, please let me know what identifiers you can search (address/time/officer) and I’ll align to that. [3] MPD station lobby CCTV – narrow and confirm retention: Aug. 27, 2025 – MPD lobby/front desk/records window  Requested time window: 6:50 PM–7:30 PM (instead of 6:30–7:30)  Please confirm whether responsive lobby CCTV for this date/time still exists (i.e., not overwritten under retention), and if it exists, the estimated time to retrieve/review/redact. [4] Fee estimate request (to evaluate further narrowing): Before I decide whether to further narrow or phase additional items, please provide an itemized estimate showing:  the hourly rate being applied,  the tasks included (search/retrieval vs. review/redaction),  estimated hours per incident/video item,  and whether any portion of the work can be reduced by producing clipped “on-scene only” segments. Petitions 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:

Joanne Perperian SPR26/0119 Page 3 January 21, 2026 (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; (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) shall provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(b). Request for Additional Time to Produce Responsive Records In its petition, the City requests an extension of 30 business days and provides the following information in support of its request: Based upon Mr. Revelles’ revised scope of the request… the Video Evidence Unit of the Malden Police Department conducted a search of its records and identified… (6) files containing body worn camera footage totaling 4 hours of video… [An identified officer] took a sample of these recordings and determined that due to the content and length of each recording, it will take approximately 12 hours to review and redact these files. As mentioned, the City has performed 2 hours in this search to date. The City estimates the total time to review and redact to take approximately 16 hours, plus the 2 hours spent to date researching… Given the broad scope of the request and the volume of potentially responsive records which require detailed review and redaction, the City submits that it is not reasonable to require it to produce the responsive records within 10 business days. Therefore, the City hereby petitions for an extension of time to respond to the request, given that the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure is significant. Additionally, the employee who will perform the search and recovery, segregation and redaction process have many other responsibilities which they cannot ignore. The City will be unable to complete its review,

Joanne Perperian SPR26/0119 Page 4 January 21, 2026 redaction, and production of records during normal business hours of operation without an extension. Pursuant to M. G. L. c. 66, section 10(c), the City requests an additional 30 business days beyond the time specified under the statute (25 business days) – for a total of 55 business days from the date of receipt of payment for the work, to respond to the request. I find that in light of the need to search for, collect, segregate and examine the records and the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure, in conjunction with the capacity of the City to produce the request without the extension and the efforts undertaken by the City in fulfilling the current requests, the City has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iv). The City is granted an extension of 30 business days. Petition to Assess Fees – Municipalities The Supervisor of Records (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. 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 determination 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 $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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).

Joanne Perperian SPR26/0119 Page 5 January 21, 2026 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). Current Petition In its petition, the City argues the following in support of its request to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemption (c): These documents require redactions in accordance with the exemption set forth at G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c)… In terms of the second clause of the privacy exemption, it applies to requests for records that implicate privacy interests. Analysis under the second clause of Exemption (c) is subjective in nature and requires a balancing of the public’s right to know against the relevant privacy interests at stake… Records responsive to the request will thus need to be reviewed and redacted to the extent they contain personal identifiable information, including, but not limited to license plate numbers, keypad entry codes, personal phone numbers. In light of the City’s petition, I find the City 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 City may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of such exempt material. Conclusion Accordingly, I find the City has established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days as described above. Additionally, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information described above, the City may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. This office encourages Mr. Revelles and the City to continue to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification to 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 records sought more efficiently and affordably). Any subsequent fee estimate from the City must be made in compliance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii) and G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii).

Joanne Perperian SPR26/0119 Page 6 January 21, 2026 Please note, Mr. Revelles 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: Francisco Revelles