Mota, Daniel v. Dartmouth, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20260809)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 10, 2026 SPR26/0809 Nicole Perullo Records Access Officer Dartmouth Police Department 1390 Tucker Road Dartmouth, MA 02747 Dear Ms. Perullo: On March 6, 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, Daniel Mota. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On March 3, 2026, Mr. Mota requested, “[r]eport, 911 call, and body camera footage for the incident at Bay Coast Bank involving [an identified individual].” 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 SPR26/0809 Page 2 March 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 In its petition, the Department argued the following in support of its request to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (c) and (f): With respect to the request, we have the following records: report 26-162-OF, 1 (one) 911 call recording, and 6 body worn camera videos totaling approximately 60 (sixty) minutes for the records requested. However, we will be required to make certain redactions to those records in accordance with the Public Records Law. Exemption (c): Officers computer screen, social security numbers, and license number(s)… 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 SPR26/0809 Page 3 March 10, 2026 Exemption (f): Witness information… The above requested records contain confidential witness information; therefore, redactions are appropriate to pre- serve 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). Conclusion Accordingly, I find that to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information described above, the Department may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. This office encourages Mr. Mota and the Department to continue to communicate directly 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 to 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). Any subsequent fee estimate from the Department must be made in compliance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii) and G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Please note, Mr. Mota 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: Daniel Mota