Sinyangwe, Samuel v. Fall River, City of - Police Department (SPR 20260774)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 11, 2026 SPR26/0774 Amanda Matton Staff Services Fall River Police Department 685 Pleasant Street Fall River, MA 02721 Dear Ms. Matton: March 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 a public records 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, it is my understanding that the Department furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Samuel Sinyangwe. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L.c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On February 17, 2026, Mr. Sinyangwe requested, “Use of force (UOF) data dating from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2025.” 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 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 SPR26/0774 Page 2 March 11, 2026 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). Petition to Assess Fees In its petition, the Department requests, “permission to charge the following fees…” In support of its petition, the Department provides the following information: The department will likely need to redact information pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. In addition to assessing fees for redaction under Exemption (c), the Department is requesting to assess fees for time to segregate, compile, and review the requested records. With this being a broad request and the time frame requested for, there are hundreds of use of force reports to compile and go through. 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, dates of birth, social

Amanda Matton SPR26/0774 Page 3 March 11, 2026 security numbers, and phone numbers, all of which must be redacted prior to release. Redactions are necessary to safeguard private information, prevent unwarranted intrusions into personal privacy, preserve the integrity of ongoing or potential investigations, mitigate the risk of identity theft or fraud, and comply with Public Records Law. In light of the Department’s petition, I find that 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). Fees in Excess of $25.00 per Hour In its petition, the Department requests permission to charge an hourly fee of $48.37. In support of its request, the Department provides the following information concerning anticipated redactions: We acknowledge that the Public Records Law provides that the fee must be calculated using the hourly rate equal to or less than the hourly rate of the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill to complete the search and segregation and that the hourly rate cannot exceed $25.00 per hour unless approved by the Supervisor. Unfortunately, this is one instance where an upward deviation from maximum rate should be made. The Fall River Police Department seeks to respond to the above listed request; however, at this time the scope of the request is excessively broad and would result in significant time being spent to compile, segregate, redact, and reproduce said records. Should the requester be able to narrow the scope of the requested records, it would reduce the amount of time required to produce and respond to this request. At this time, the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill to complete the search and segregation is Sergeant Ross Aubin whose hourly rate is $48.37 hr. This individual is the lowest paid employee in the Office of Professional Standards who has knowledge and training pertaining to Public Records Law exemptions, as well as data extraction, redaction software aptitude, and access to requested records. I find the Department has not met its burden to explain how the request could not prudently be completed without assessing a fee in excess of $25 per hour. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv).

Amanda Matton SPR26/0774 Page 4 March 11, 2026 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. However, I find that the Department has not met its burden to assess fees in excess of $25.00. Please note, Mr. Sinyangwe 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: Samuel Sinyangwe