Almeida, Jelyssah v. Fall River, City of - Police Department (SPR 20260391)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 10, 2026 SPR26/0391 Amanda Matton Staff Services Fall River Police Department 685 Pleasant Street Fall River, MA 02721 Dear Ms. Matton: On February 4, 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, Jelyssah Almeida. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On January 21, 2026, Ms. Almeida requested the following: …records related to the investigation, arrest, and prosecution of [an identified individual] regarding the incident on May 29, 2023, at the Globe Car Wash on Broadway. As this matter has reached a final disposition and the subject has been sentenced, I am requesting the following: [1] Video Footage: All Body-Worn Camera (BWC) and Dashboard Camera (Dash Cam) footage from all responding and arresting officers. [2] Surveillance Media: Any car wash or nearby business surveillance footage obtained and held by the department as evidence. [3] Complete Investigative Files: Including the full narrative incident reports, arrest reports, witness statements, and evidence logs. [4] Booking Records: Including the subject’s mugshot and booking sheet. Please note that in an email to this office on February 4, 2026, Ms. Almeida objected to the Department’s petition to charge for time spent segregating and redacting responsive records and waiver of statutory limits on fees. 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 SPR26/0391 Page 2 February 10, 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 SPR26/0391 Page 3 February 10, 2026 Current Petition to Assess Fees In its petition, in addition to charging for segregation and redaction required by law under Exemption (a), the Department seeks permission to assess fees for segregation and redaction under Exemption (c) 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. 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. 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. , [sic] the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill to complete the segregation and redaction of Body Warn [sic] 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 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

Amanda Matton SPR26/0391 Page 4 February 10, 2026 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. Further, this office encourages Ms. Almeida and the Department to continue to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. 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 records sought more efficiently and affordably). When preparing a fee estimate for the provision of the requested records, the Department is advised to provide a detailed explanation to the requestor indicating why the estimated amount of time is necessary. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv) (requiring the amount of the fee must be reasonable). The Department must provide a response to Ms. Almeida within five business days of receipt of this determination. See 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(h)(4). Please note, Ms. Almeida 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: Jelyssah Almeida