Guerreiro, Richard v. Dartmouth, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20260506)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 18, 2026 SPR26/0506 Nicole Perullo Records Access Officer Dartmouth Police Department 1390 Tucker Road Dartmouth, MA 02747 Dear Ms. Perullo: On February 11, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Dartmouth Police Department (Department) seeking 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 Department furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Richard Guerreiro. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L.c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On February 3, 2025, Mr. Guerreiro requested, “Officer videos for [an identified police report].” 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. 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

Nicole Perullo SPR26/0506 Page 2 February 18, 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 In its petition, the Department requests permission to charge for segregation and redaction of body camera footage. In support of its petition, the Department provides the following information: Exemption (c): Officers computer screen, social security numbers, and license number(s) - This exemption applies to “personnel and medical files or information; also, any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” The records requested contain information which, if disclosed, would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Such information contains intimate details, and the privacy interests involved outweigh the public interests in the disclosure of that information. Exemption (f): Witness information - This exemption applies to “investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of the public view by law enforcement or any other investigatory officials; that the disclosure of which materials would

Nicole Perullo SPR26/0506 Page 3 February 18, 2026 probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest.” The above requested records contain confidential witness information; therefore, redactions are appropriate to preserve the anonymity of voluntary witnesses. This exemption is also intended to allow investigative officials to provide an assurance of confidentiality to private citizens so that they will speak openly and voluntarily about such matters. Any and all information contained in a witness statement and/or within the investigation involving said voluntary witnesses, which if disclosed would create a grave risk of directly or indirectly identifying the voluntary witness who is subject to withholding. The disclosure of the names and other identifying information of victims, complainants and voluntary witnesses may deter other potential witnesses and citizens from providing information to law enforcement agencies in future investigations. Disclosure would so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public’s interest. 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. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Conclusion Accordingly, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the Department may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. I encourage the parties to communicate further to enable the Department to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. Please note, Mr. Guerreiro 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: Richard Guerreiro