Muniz, Liza v. Dartmouth, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20260572)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 26, 2026 SPR26/0572 Nicole Perullo Police Clerk Dartmouth Police Department 1390 Tucker Road Dartmouth, MA 02747 Dear Ms. Perullo: On February 19, 2026, 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, Lisa Muniz. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On February 9, 2026, Ms. Muniz requested, “[b]ody cam footage [for an identified individual] date[d] 12/30/2025 called at 9:07 am [and] 1/02/2026 called at 9:44am.” 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 SPR26/0572 Page 2 February 26, 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 February 19, 2026 petition, in addition to charging for segregation and redaction required by law under Exemption (a), the Department requests permission to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (c) and (f), provides the following in support of its request: With respect to the request, we have the following records: 6 (six) body camera video for reports 25-2385-OF, and 2 (two) body camera videos for report 26-11- OF totaling approximately 193.5 (one hundred and ninety-three and a half) minutes for the records requested. However, we will be required to make certain redactions to those records in accordance with the Public Records Law. [1] Exemption (c): . . . 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[;]

Nicole Perullo SPR26/0572 Page 3 February 26, 2026 [2] Exemption (f): Witness information . . . The above requested records contain confidential witness information; therefore, redaction are appropriate to preserve the anonymity of voluntary witnesses. . .[;] [3] Exemption (a): CORI information . . . any and all Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI), such as a criminal charge, an arrest, or like information, shall not be public record and is protected under statute/law[;] . . . In furtherance of this petition, we further state that the fee represents an actual and good faith representation to comply with the request, the fee is necessary, the amount of the fee is reasonable, and the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. 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). The Department is reminded 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). Conclusion Accordingly, I find the Department has met its burden to explain how the response could not be prudently completed without segregation or redaction. Ms. Muniz is advised that she may appeal the Department’s fee estimate within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Please note, Ms. Muniz 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: Liza Muniz