Uke, Desmond v. Worcester, City of (SPR 20260402)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 10, 2026 SPR26/0402 Michael Manning Records Access Officer City of Worcester 455 Main Street Worcester, MA 01609 Dear Mr. Manning: On February 5, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the City of Worcester (City) seeking an extension of time to produce records, 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 City furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor, Desmond Uke. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On January 22, 2026, in three separate requests, Mr. Uke requested: [1] …[B]ody camera and surveillance footage related to an incident involving [an identified individual], 46, which occurred on or around December 10, 2025. To gain a comprehensive understanding of the incident, I am hereby requesting access to any available body cameras and dashcam footage of the arresting officer, including but not limited to the initial encounter, the arrest process, and any subsequent interactions from the Worcester Police Department, Massachusetts. Accompanying the footage, I am also requesting a copy of the case report to provide context and background information on the incident. The City assigned reference number P083373-012226 to this request. [2] ...[B]ody camera and surveillance footage related to an incident involving [an identified individual], 30, which occurred on or around April 19, 2025. To gain a comprehensive understanding of the incident, I am hereby requesting access to any available body cameras and dashcam footage of the arresting officer, including but not limited to the initial encounter, the arrest process, and any subsequent interactions from the Worcester Police Department, Massachusetts. Accompanying the footage, I am also requesting a copy of the case report to 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

Michael Manning SPR26/0402 Page 2 February 10, 2026 provide context and background information on the incident. The City assigned reference number P083394-012226 to this request. [3] …[B]ody camera and surveillance footage related to an incident involving [an identified individual], 36, which occurred on or around August 5, 2025. …[B]ody cameras and dashcam footage of the arresting officer, including but not limited to the initial encounter, the arrest process, and any subsequent interactions from the Worcester Police Department, Massachusetts. Accompanying the footage, I am also requesting a copy of the case report to provide context and background information on the incident. The City assigned reference number P083396-012226 to this request. 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: (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).

Michael Manning SPR26/0402 Page 3 February 10, 2026 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: The City of Worcester seeks an extension of time to fulfill the above-mentioned requests. The City estimates that there are approximately 730 total minutes of responsive recordings and 69 total pages of responsive reports for this request. The competition of this request will involve the review and redaction of all of the responsive records to protect exempt information. As noted in the petition to assess fees the City expects redactions to be made pursuant to Exemptions (a), (c) and (f). In the time span since this request was placed the City has received 677 public records requests. It is likely that a portion of these additional requests may also require review and redaction by the City’s Law Department. Additionally, only a small subset of City employees have the requisite knowledge and technological expertise to redact the responsive body worn camera recordings. In light of the need to collect, segregate and examine the records, as well as the capacity of the City to produce the records without an extension, the City respectfully asks that the Supervisor grant an extension of thirty business days from receipt of payment of its fee estimate. I find that in light of the need to collect, segregate, and examine the records, and the capacity of the City to produce the records without the extension, 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.

Michael Manning SPR26/0402 Page 4 February 10, 2026 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). Current Petition to Assess Fees In its petition, in addition to charging for segregation and redaction required by law under Exemption (a), the City 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: Under Exemption (c), the City would redact any responsive material constituting intimate details of a highly personal nature of individuals who are identified in the recordings or reports. This would include information such as private telephone numbers that are given to the dispatchers in the process of taking the call or that appear in the police reports in question. The City will also redact any medical information that appears in the responsive records. Under Exemption (f), the City will redact any footage that may identify a voluntary witness or complainant including the names of individuals who called 911 to seek assistance from the Worcester Police Department. The City’s Law Department will also collaborate with the Worcester Police Department to determine if any portions of the responsive records are prejudicial to current or potential future law enforcement

Michael Manning SPR26/0402 Page 5 February 10, 2026 activity. Should any investigation remain on-going, the City will redact portions of the records that may reveal the course of the ongoing investigation or potentially alert suspects or targets to the activities of investigative officials. The City must also redact the responsive footage to ensure that portions of the footage that contain confidential investigative techniques used by the Worcester Police Department have been redacted. 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. Fee in Excess of $25.00 per Hour In its petition, the City states the following concerning its request to charge a fee in excess of $25.00 per hour: The City requests to assess the hourly rate of one of its Public Records Specialists. This employee makes $35.00 per hour. This employee is the lowest paid induvial [sic] capable of segregating and redacting the responsive body worn camera footage. The redaction of body worn camera footage involves frame by frame redaction of video and audio of exempt portions. The process of redacting body worn camera footage is technically demanding and requires specialized training in the Axon platform. The City’s Public Records Specialists have this specialized training and clearance to manage, redact, and secure body worn camera footage. Axon’s software allows for use sophisticated redaction software to allow for redactions of individuals [sic] or objects in motion and to limit redactions to a small area to maximize the amount of segregable portions of responsive footage. As noted in the petition to assess fees for segregation and redaction, the City expects there to be numerous portions of the responsive footage that requires redaction pursuant to the exemptions (a), (c) and (f). To allow an untrained staffer to redact the responsive footage would risk redactions of except material being improperly applied and otherwise exempt material to be publicly disclosed. … 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 assessing a fee in excess of $25.00 per hour. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). I find the City may assess a fee limited to $35.00 per hour for review of the body-worn camera footage. Conclusion Accordingly, I find the City has established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days as described above. Additionally, I find that to the extent the responsive records

Michael Manning SPR26/0402 Page 6 February 10, 2026 contain the exempt information described above, the City may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. Further, as described above, the City may assess a fee limited to $35.00 per hour for review of the body-worn camera footage. This office encourages Mr. Uke and the City 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). Mr. Uke is advised that he may appeal the City’s fee estimate within 90 days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Please note, Mr. Uke 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: Desmond Uke