Martinez, Santiago v. Fall River, City of - Police Department (SPR 20260859)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 18, 2026 SPR26/0859 Amanda Matton Records Access Officer Fall River Police Department 685 Pleasant Street Fall River, MA 02721 Dear Ms. Matton: On March 11, 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 the 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, I understand that the Department furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor, Santiago Martinez. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On March 10, 2026, Mr. Martinez requested the following: [R]egarding an arrest incident involving Hector Fernandez that occurred on or around March 22, 2024. Specifically, I request a comprehensive production of the following records related to this case: The complete Incident Report and Arrest Affidavit. The full Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) report. All Body-Worn Camera (BWC) footage and Dash-Camera footage from all officers involved in the high-speed pursuit, the collision involving the patrol vehicle, and the subsequent arrest. Incident Details for Identification: Name of the Arrested Person: [identified individual] Date of Incident: March 22, 2024 Location: Fall River / Bristol County, Massachusetts Primary Charges: Assault and Battery on a Police Officer, Disarming a Police Officer, and Possession of a Stolen Motor Vehicle. This request is part of a journalistic effort to document interactions between law enforcement and the public. To ensure transparency, I am requesting all three elements (BWC, Incident Report, and CAD) in a single production. Please inform me of any estimated costs associated with fulfilling this request before 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 SPR26/0859 Page 2 March 18, 2026 proceeding. If any portion of these records is deemed exempt from disclosure, please provide a written explanation citing the specific statutory exemption for each redaction or denial. 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. 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).

Amanda Matton SPR26/0859 Page 3 March 18, 2026 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 to Assess Fees In its petition, the Department argues the following in support of its request to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (c): 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 medical information pertaining to individuals involved, personal identifiers, including names, dates of birth, and facial images, all of which must be redacted prior to release. 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. Fee in Excess of $25.00 per Hour In its petition, the Department states the following concerning its request to charge a fee in excess of $25.00 per hour: After reviewing the scope of the request, we estimate that the department is required to devote more than 2 hours of time to search for, compile, segregate, redact and/or reproduce the requested records; and the segregation or redaction of records is required by law or the fee has been approved by the Supervisor of Public Records. [T]he lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill to complete the segregation and redaction of Body Worn Camera (BWC) records, is Detective Will Pavao whose normal hourly rate is $35.68 hr. This is because he is the only records access officer, with access to the BWC software system, and the lowest paid employee certified to understand the public records law within that position. The process of redacting body worn camera footage is technically demanding and requires specialized training in the Axon redaction platform. Axon’s software involves advanced tools for motion tracking, audio filtering, and pixel-based masking, all of which must be applied manually to ensure compliance with privacy laws. The knowledge and experience of performing these redactions falls solely on Detective Pavao. Each video must be reviewed frame by frame to identify and obscure sensitive material, including victims, witnesses, juveniles, and protected information.

Amanda Matton SPR26/0859 Page 4 March 18, 2026 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 assessing a fee in excess of $25.00 per hour. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). I find the Department may assess a fee limited to $35.68 per hour for review as described above. 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. Further, as described above, the Department may assess a fee limited to $35.68 per hour. Mr. Martinez is advised that he may appeal the Department’s fee estimate within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Please note, Mr. Martinez 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: Santiago Martinez