Almeida, Jelyssah v. Fall River, City of - Police Department (SPR 20260730)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 10, 2026 SPR26/0730 Cheryl Narcizo Record Access Officer Fall River Police Department 685 Pleasant Street Fall River, MA 02721 Dear Ms. Narcizo: I have received the petition of Jelyssah Almeida appealing the response of the Fall River Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). 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. Prior Petition This request was the subject of a prior petition. See SPR26/0391 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 10, 2026). In my February 10th determination, I found that the Department met its burden to assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of exempt material under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. I further found that the Department may assess a fee limited to $35.68 per hour for review of the body-worn camera footage. The Department responded on February 10, 2026, providing a fee estimate. The 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

Cheryl Narcizo SPR26/0730 Page 2 March 10, 2026 Department further clarified its fee estimate on February 13, 2026. Unsatisfied with the responses, Ms. Almeida petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0730, was opened as a result. 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 Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Almeida contends: Failure to Provide a “Detailed Explanation” of Time: . . . Instead, the Department provided a generic 4:1 mathematical ratio (4 hours of footage multiplied by 4) to reach a 16-hour estimate. A generic multiplier is not a “detailed explanation,” especially since the Department claims to use “advanced tools” for motion tracking and pixel-based masking which should increase efficiency. Improper Application of the Detective Rate to Administrative Tasks: . . . The Department has provided zero justification for why a Detective’s rate is being applied to basic clerical work like photocopying . . . . Manipulation of the Mandatory Two-Hour Fee Waiver: If the Department maintains that [an identified] Detective is the only employee with the “necessary skill” to perform this work, then the first two hours of his $35.68/hr time must be waived. By likely applying these “free hours” to a lower administrative rate while billing me for the Detective’s time from the very first minute, the Department is engaging in a bad-faith effort to inflate the bill and circumvent the law.

Cheryl Narcizo SPR26/0730 Page 3 March 10, 2026 Because the Department has failed to meet the specific requirements of your February 10th determination, I request that you find the FRPD has forfeited its right to assess fees under M.G.L. c. 66, § 10(e) and order the immediate production of the records at no cost. The Department’s February 10th and 13th Responses In its February 10, 2026 response, the Department assessed a fee of $535.20, stating: . . . the charge for the detective to finish this request would be in the amount of $535.20 . . . . In its February 13, 2026 response, the Department provided the following explanation in support of its fee estimate: This price includes an excess of 4 hours of footage that is then multiplied by 4 for time needed for segregation, extraction, and redaction of the footage. This brings us to 16 hours for [an identified] Detective to go through the requested body cam footage. For items submitted to evidence it brings the total to 1 hour due to the segregation, extraction, and redaction – totaling 17 hours. Two hours deducted from this amount, then brings us to a total of 15 chargeable hours for [the] request. Fee Waivers G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(v) provides the following with respect to waiving a fee for the production of responsive records: the records access officer may waive or reduce the amount of any fee charged under this subsection upon a showing that disclosure of a requested record is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requestor, or upon a showing that the requestor lacks the financial ability to pay the full amount of the reasonable fee. Please be advised, although the Supervisor may encourage fees to be waived, the Supervisor may not mandate that a records access officer waive fees assessed for complying with a public records request; rather, as described above, the records access officer may waive or reduce the amount of any fee upon a showing of various factors. See G. L. c. 66, § 10 (d)(v); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2)(k). Reasonableness of the Fee Estimate Although the Department has estimated that the process of compiling, reviewing, and preparing responsive documents for production will take 17 total hours of employee time, the

Cheryl Narcizo SPR26/0730 Page 4 March 10, 2026 Department has not provided sufficient explanation of why this amount of employee time is necessary. Specifically, the Department must clarify how it requires 4 hours to review each hour of video footage, and 1 hour to review the remaining responsive records. Specifically, it is not clear from the Department’s estimate how much time is allocated to search, and how much time is allocated for segregation and/or redaction of the records. The Department must provide additional information regarding the tasks involved in producing these records. The Department must also clarify how many pages of records it possesses which are responsive to the request. The Department must also clarify whether $25.00 per hour is the hourly rate of the lowest paid employee who has the skill required to search for, compile, segregate, redact, or reproduce the remaining records which are not body-worn camera footage. For the reasons discussed above, I find the Department must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the $535.20 fee assessed in its February 10th fee estimate is expressly provided for and consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). This office encourages Ms. Almeida and the Department to communicate further in order 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 the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Any revision to the request would result in the requirement to issue a revised fee estimate. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Almeida with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Ms. Almeida may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jelyssah Almeida