Chinedu, Chinakwe v. Fall River, City of - Police Department (SPR 20260185)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 27, 2026 SPR26/0185 Amanda Matton Staff Services Fall River Police Department 685 Pleasant Street Fall River, MA 02721 Dear Ms. Matton: On January 20, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the Fall River Police Department (Department) seeking permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records, and a waiver of statutory limits on fees that may be assessed in responding to the request. 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, I understand that the Department furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor, Chinakwe Chinedu. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On January 8, 2026, Chinakwe Chinedu requested the following: [1] [T]he body camera footage recorded on December 10, 2024, between 19:20 and 20:20. Specifically, I am requesting footage from the body camera(s) with serial number(s): - X60AA0418 - X60AE873D The footage relates to an incident involving the arrest of a man and woman ([two named individuals]) both charged with possession of class A drugs and possession of class B drugs. [2] I also humbly request for all available documents, and or body camera footages relating to the aforementioned case including the 911 call (if applicable), police report, incident report and any other records in your custody related to this case. 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

Amanda Matton SPR26/0185 Page 2 January 27, 2026 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). 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).

Amanda Matton SPR26/0185 Page 3 January 27, 2026 Current Petition to Assess Fees In its petition, the Department seeks permission to assess fees for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law, and argues the following in support of its request: Exemption (c) pertains to “personnel and medical files or information, and any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual,” the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Accordingly, these records contain personal identifiers, including names, dates of birth, and facial images, all of which must be redacted prior to release. Exemption (f) allows withholding of “investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of the public view by law enforcement or other investigatory officials the disclosure of which materials would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest.” Redactions needed in accordance to exemption (f) to protect police tactics and protocols. 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. The Department is advised, however, that the current language of Exemption (c) prohibits its application to records related to law enforcement misconduct investigations. See G. L. c. 4, § (26)(c). Fee in Excess of $25.00 per Hour In its petition, the Department states the following concerning its request to charge a fee in excess of $25.00 per hour: After reviewing the scope of the request, we estimate that the department is required to devote more than 2 hours of time to search for, compile, segregate, redact and/or reproduce the requested records; and the segregation or redaction of records is required by law or the fee has been approved by the Supervisor of Public Records. [T]he lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill to complete the segregation and redaction of Body Warn Camera (BWC) records, is Detective Will Pavao whose normal hourly rate is $35.68 hr. This is because he is the only records access officer, with access to the BWC software system, and the lowest paid employee certified to understand the public records law within that position. The process of redacting body worn camera footage is technically demanding and requires specialized training in the Axon redaction platform. Axon’s software involves advanced tools for motion tracking, audio filtering, and pixel-based masking, all of which must be applied manually to ensure compliance

Amanda Matton SPR26/0185 Page 4 January 27, 2026 with privacy laws. The knowledge and experience of performing these redactions falls solely on Detective Pavao. Each video must be reviewed frame by frame to identify and obscure sensitive material, including victims, witnesses, juveniles, and protected information. 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 assessing a fee in excess of $25.00 per hour. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). I find the Department may assess a fee limited to $35.68 per hour for review of the body-worn camera footage. Conclusion Accordingly, I find that to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information described above, the Department may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. Further, as described above, the Department may assess a fee limited to $35.68 per hour for review of the body worn camera footage. Please note, Chinakwe Chinedu 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: Chinakwe Chinedu