Almeida, Jelyssah v. Fall River, City of - Police Department (SPR 20261015)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 2, 2026 SPR26/1015 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 and Appeal This request was the subject of a prior petition and appeal. See SPR26/0391 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 10, 2026) and SPR26/0730 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 10, 2026). In my March 10th determination, I ordered the Department to revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee estimate is expressly provided for and consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The Department responded on March 20, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Department’s 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 SPR26/1015 Page 2 April 2, 2026 response, Ms. Almeida petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1015, 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: I request that your office find this fee unreasonable and order a full fee forfeiture under G. L. c. 66, § 10(e). The Department’s revised response fails to comply with the spirit of your March 10th determination for the following reasons: Public Interest and Access as a Constitutional Right: The records sought concern the homicide of [an identified individual] at a public place of business during a high-traffic holiday weekend. This incident caused profound community alarm. By escalating the fee to over $1,100 after being ordered to justify the costs, the Department is effectively using a “paywall” to deter the public from reviewing law enforcement records. A fee that serves as a deterrent to the right of access is a violation of the Public Records Law. Diminished Privacy and Investigatory Interests: This case reached a final disposition in a public jury trial. The materials sought—including body-cam footage and investigative reports—have already been vetted and introduced as

Cheryl Narcizo SPR26/1015 Page 3 April 2, 2026 public exhibits. The Department’s claim that it requires 42.5 hours of new labor to redact records that have already been disclosed in a public forum is a request for redundant and unnecessary costs. Improper Technology Surcharge (Page 5): The Department is charging an arbitrary 3:1 labor ratio for surveillance footage, claiming the files are in a “proprietary format” incompatible with their own software. Requesters cannot be financially penalized for a municipality’s administrative or technical inefficiencies. Willful Non-Compliance with the “Lowest-Paid” Rule (Page 11): Despite the order to use the lowest-paid employee, the Department continues to bill $35.68/hr for redacting 911 audio and 40 static images. These tasks do not require specialized “Axon” software skills. The Department has identified a Records Clerk at $18.42/hr, yet they have chosen a rate nearly double that amount to maximize the cost and deter the request. Tactical Manipulation of the Mandatory Waiver (Page 11): The Department applied the mandatory two-hour fee waiver solely to the lowest-paid clerical and property tasks while billing the vast majority of the time at the highest possible rate. This calculation ensures the waiver has the smallest possible impact on the total bill, circumventing the legislative intent of G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). The Department’s March 20th Fee Estimate The department utilizes the Axon redaction suite for the redaction of body-worn camera footage. . . . The software includes tools that employ artificial intelligence to identify and flag objects it recognizes as faces, license plates, computer screens, mobile devices, notebooks, and identification cards. While these tools have increased the efficiency of the redaction process, the system is far from perfect. Additionally, the automated detection capabilities are limited to the identification of these six categories and do not extend to other information that may be subject to redaction under the various exemptions contained within Massachusetts public records law. When a video is processed, the system analyzes the footage and flags items it believes fall within those six categories. It is then the responsibility of the individual performing the redaction to review each flagged item and determine whether it should in fact be redacted. The system will routinely miss items that require redaction, while also flagging items that do not fall within the identified categories. As a result, manual review and verification remain necessary to ensure compliance with applicable legal requirements.  Body Worn Cameras[:]

Cheryl Narcizo SPR26/1015 Page 4 April 2, 2026 o There are numerous factors that can cause the system to produce inaccurate results and require significant human intervention, many of which are directly related to the nature of video recorded during police operations using body-worn cameras. These factors include:  Lighting Conditions . . . Lighting plays a major role in computer vision accuracy. Faces or objects may become indistinguishable, causing missed or inaccurate detections.  Motion & Motion Blur . . . Fast movement creates problems for both detection and tracking. Objects appear smeared or distorted, and AI will lose track of a subject between frames.  Camera Movement . . . Certain camera behaviors make object tracking difficult. The system may struggle to maintain consistent redaction boxes.  Occlusion . . . AI struggles when the subject is partially hidden. . . .  Angle & Perspective . . . AI detection models are usually trained on typical viewpoints. The model may fail to recognize the object entirely.  Crowd Density  Scenes with many people increase complexity.  Overlapping faces will cause tracking confusion  Environmental Conditions . . .Weather or environmental effects degrade visual data.  Object Variability . . . AI may struggle with unusual appearances.  Reflections & Screens . . . Sensitive information may appear in indirect ways. . . . AI systems may not detect reflections or screen content. o Based on these factors, even with the assistance of automated redaction tools, the redaction of body-worn camera footage remains a time-intensive process. o On average, the time required to complete the redaction process is approximately four times the length of the video itself. This includes the time necessary to locate the footage, initiate and configure the automated tools, manually review and process the video to ensure redaction compliance, export the redacted file, and prepare it for distribution. The department relies on this four-to-one time ratio when providing a good- faith estimate of the time required to fulfill such requests.  Surveillance Footage[:] o Some of the previously mentioned factors contribute to the processing of surveillance footage but can also include:  Video Quality & Resolution  Low-quality footage significantly reduces detection accuracy.

Cheryl Narcizo SPR26/1015 Page 5 April 2, 2026  Low resolution makes faces and text hard to identify.  Compression artifacts (blockiness from heavy compression).  Pixelation or digital noise.  These items matter because AI models rely on identifiable features. When pixels are blurred or compressed, the model may fail to detect what needs redacting. o Frame Rate  Low frame rate video can cause tracking problems, such as under 10–15 FPS security footage  Dropped frames  AI has fewer frames to track movement, causing missed redactions. o Since surveillance footage is typically a recording from a static location the amount of effort required for redaction is less. o On average, the time required to complete the redaction of surveillance video is approximately two times the length of the video itself. This includes the time necessary to upload the footage into the Axon system, initiate and configure the automated tools, manually review and process the video to ensure redaction compliance, export the redacted file, and prepare it for distribution. The department relies on this two-to-one time ratio when providing a good-faith estimate of the time required to fulfill such requests.  Interview Videos o Since interview footage is typically a recording from a static location the amount of effort required for redaction is less. o On average, the time required to complete the redaction of interview video is approximately two times the length of the video itself. This includes the time necessary to upload the footage into the Axon system, initiate and configure the automated tools, manually review and process the video to ensure redaction compliance, export the redacted file, and prepare it for distribution. The department relies on this two-to-one time ratio when providing a good-faith estimate of the time required to fulfill such requests.  Audio Files o There is no AI tool for audio which we utilize and requires full manual redaction. o On average, the time required to complete the redaction of audio files is approximately two times the length of the video itself. This includes the time necessary to upload the files into the Axon system, initiate and configure the automated tools, manually review and process the video to ensure redaction compliance, export the redacted file, and

Cheryl Narcizo SPR26/1015 Page 6 April 2, 2026 prepare it for distribution. The department relies on this two-to-one time ratio when providing a good-faith estimate of the time required to fulfill such requests.  Image Files o There is no AI tool for image redaction which we utilize and requires full manual redaction. o On average, the time required to complete the redaction of photographs is approximately one minute per image requiring redaction. This includes the time necessary to open the file in photo editing software, manually review and apply the required redactions to ensure compliance, export the redacted image, and prepare it for distribution. The department applies this one-minute-per-photograph estimate when providing a good-faith estimate of the time required to fulfill such requests. Cost Explanation[:] The lowest-paid employee within the department who possesses the necessary skills to perform the segregation and redaction of media files—including body- worn camera footage, surveillance footage, and other audio/video recordings— and who has the knowledge and training regarding exemptions under Massachusetts Public Records Law is [an identified] Detective. [The identified] Detective is assigned to the Information & Investigation Technology Unit (IIT Unit) and his regular hourly rate of pay is $35.68 per hour. The lowest-paid employee within the department who possesses the necessary skills to perform the research, segregation and redaction of reports and other documents, and who has the knowledge and training regarding exemptions under Massachusetts Public Records Law is [an identified] Records Clerk. [The identified] Records Clerk is assigned to the Record Room and his regular hourly rate of pay is $18.42 per hour. The lowest-paid employee within the department who possesses the necessary access and skills to perform the research and sharing of items entered into evidence is [an identified] Detective. [The identified] Detective is assigned to the Evidence and Property Unit and his regular hourly rate of pay is $39.13 per hour. In regard to how the department applies the two free hours permitted under the law, it is helpful to explain the department’s workflow for processing public records requests. When a public records request is submitted by a member of the general public through the department’s GovQA portal, a case entry is created and a reference

Cheryl Narcizo SPR26/1015 Page 7 April 2, 2026 number is automatically assigned. The request is then forwarded to a Records Clerk assigned to the Records Room for initial processing. The Records Clerk reviews the request to determine the scope of the records being sought and identifies the materials that must be located. This may include police reports, 911 audio recordings, and radio communications. The Records Clerk is responsible for locating these materials and conducting any necessary redactions to written reports. Redaction of 911 audio recordings and radio traffic recordings is performed by the Information and Investigation Technology (IIT) Unit. For other responsive materials—such as items submitted into evidence or body-worn camera footage— the Records Clerk assigns tasks to the appropriate specialized unit based on responsibility and involvement. For example, body-worn camera footage is retrieved by the IIT Unit, while items submitted into evidence are handled by the Evidence and Property Unit. Any materials requiring audio, video, or digital redaction are then forwarded to the IIT Unit for processing. As it applies to this request, and as reflected in the breakdown below, the Records Clerk performed approximately 30 minutes of work to complete their assigned responsibilities. Tasks were then assigned to both the IIT Unit and the Evidence and Property Unit. The Evidence and Property Unit subsequently performed approximately 90 minutes of work in carrying out its responsibilities related to this request. Accordingly, by the time the IIT Unit received the materials requiring redaction, a total of two hours of work had already been completed. It should also be noted that the lowest-paid employee in the Evidence and Property Unit has an hourly rate of $39.13, while the lowest-paid employee in the IIT Unit has an hourly rate of $35.68. No adjustment or increase on the rate of the Evidence and Property Unit was requested, as the work performed by that unit fell within the initial two hours provided at no charge. Cost Breakdown[:] Upon further review of all responsive materials to ensure that a fair and accurate estimate had been provided, it was determined that the original cost estimate was incorrect as it accounted only for the redaction of body-worn camera footage and did not include the other materials requested. Body Worn Camera Footage . . . - $606.56  There are 13 videos totaling 255 minutes  Breakdown o 13 videos totaling 255 minutes.

Cheryl Narcizo SPR26/1015 Page 8 April 2, 2026  Total redaction processing time totals 17 hrs  255 min x 4 = 1020 min  1020 min / 60 = 17 hrs  $35.68 x 17 = $606.56. Surveillance / Witness Footage . . . - $350.74[:] There are 6 videos totaling 212 minutes. Witness provided cell phone footage is dynamic in nature, similar to that of body worn cameras, and is treated similar to BWC footage in regard to processing time.  Breakdown o 1 (49) minute video totaling 49 minutes.  Total redaction processing time totals 1.63 hrs  49 min x 2 = 98 min  98 min / 60 = 1.63 hrs  $35.68 x 1.63 = $58.16. o 4 (40) minute videos totaling 160 minutes.  Total video preparation and subsequent redaction processing time totals 8 hrs  160 min x 3* = 480 min  480 min / 60 = 8 hrs  $35.68 x 8 = $285.44  *The four videos will require each to be screen recorded to upload them into Axon redaction software as these videos are in a file format proprietary to the recording system’s software and not directly compatible with Axon or even native Windows operating system utilities to automatically convert the file type. This will require each video to be played through, at normal speed and through its entirety, while another program captures the video on screen to generate a file compatible for redaction purposes, which is why it was at a multiplier of three, not two. o 1 (3) minute video totaling 3 minutes  Total redaction processing time totals 12 min  3 min x 4 = 12 min (.2 hr)  $35.68 x .2 = $7.14 o $58.16 + $285.44 + $7.14 = $350.74. Tiverton Police Interview & Surveillance . . . - $74.93  There are 6 videos totaling 212 minutes.  Breakdown o 2 videos totaling 63 minutes.  Total redaction processing time totals 2.1 hrs  63 min x 2 = 126 min  126 min / 60 = 2.1

Cheryl Narcizo SPR26/1015 Page 9 April 2, 2026  $35.68 x 2.1 = $74.93. 911 Calls . . . - $8.92  There are 5 audio files totaling 6 minutes.  Breakdown o 5 audio files totaling 6 minutes.  Total redaction processing time totals 12 min  6 min x 2 = 12 min, rounded up to 15 min (.25 hr)  $35.68 x .25 = $8.92 Fall River Police Interviews . . . - $88.13  There are 4 videos totaling 74 minutes.  Breakdown o 4 videos totaling 74 minutes.  Total redaction processing time totals 2.47 hrs  74 min x 2 = 148 min  148 min / 60 = 2.47  $35.68 x 2.7 = $88.13 Images . . . - $23.91  There are 40 Images  Breakdown o 40 images totaling 40 minutes.  Total redaction processing time totals .33 hrs  40 min x 1 = 40 min  40 min / 60 = .67 hrs  $35.68 x .67 = $23.91 Documents (Record Room) - $9.21 (NO CHARGE)  [An identified] Records Clerk spent approximately 30 minutes processing the initial request, locating responsive reports, conducting redactions of the initial documents, and assigning related tasks to the IIT Unit and Evidence and Property Unit.  Breakdown o Total time 30 minutes (.5 hrs)  30 min / 60 = .5 hrs  $18.42 x .5 = $9.21 Evidence Research (Property Room) - $58.70 (NO CHARGE)  [An identified] Detective spent approximately 90 minutes locating the requested evidence, downloading and duplicating the records, preparing them for release, and facilitating their subsequent distribution to the Record Room and IIT Unit.  Breakdown o Total time 90 minutes (1.5 hrs)  90 min / 60 = 1.5 hrs

Cheryl Narcizo SPR26/1015 Page 10 April 2, 2026  $39.13 x 1.5 = $58.70 Total cost for the requested materials is $1,153.19. 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 In its fee estimate, the Department has explained that it is not charging a fee for the first two hours of work, and has clarified that the hourly rate of the lowest paid employee who has the skill required to search for, compile, segregate, redact, or reproduce the audio, video, and image files is over $25.00 per hour. However, although the Department has estimated the process of compiling, reviewing, and preparing responsive documents for production will take 34.32 total hours of employee time, the Department has not provided sufficient explanation of why this amount of employee time is necessary. Specifically, the Department must further explain the number of minutes of employee time required to review each minute of the audio files and video footage, as well as the number of pages of identified documents and the number of minutes required per page. Further, the Department is advised that under the Public Records Law, 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 skill necessary to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce a record requested, but the fee shall not be more than $25 per hour. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Municipalities may charge more than $25 per hour only if such rate is approved by the Supervisor under a petition pursuant to G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Where I approved the Department’s petition to assess a fee limited to $35.68 per hour for review of the body-worn camera footage, it is unclear how the Department can charge more than $25 per hour for the review of witness-provided cell phone footage, police interview footage, surveillance

Cheryl Narcizo SPR26/1015 Page 11 April 2, 2026 footage, 911 audio files, and images. For the reason discussed above, I find the Department must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee of $1,153.19 assessed in its March 20th estimate is 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. Ms. Almeida may wish to narrow her request. 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 agency 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