Merrigan Law, Sweeney v. Southborough, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20261120)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 2, 2026 SPR26/1120 Lieutenant Sean P. McCarthy Records Access Officer Southborough Police Department 32 Cordaville Road Southborough, MA 01772 Dear Lieutenant McCarthy: On March 27, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the Southborough 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, Sweeney Merrigan Law (requestor). G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On March 13, 2026, the requestor sought the following records, with regard to a specified incident: 1) All police reports and supplemental reports. 2) All motor vehicle and crash reports. 3) All accident reconstruction reports. 4) All citations, warnings and violation. 5) All photographs and videos. 6) All documents sent to the registry of motor vehicles, Federal Motor Carrier Saftey. 7) Administration, and/or other licensing agency. 8) All Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) information. 9) All mobile Data Terminal (MDT) information. 10) All 911 transcriptions and recordings. 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 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

Lieutenant Sean P. McCarthy SPR26/1120 Page 2 April 2, 2026 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). 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, in addition to charging for segregation and redaction required by law under Exemption (a), the Department argues the following in support of its request to charge for

Lieutenant Sean P. McCarthy SPR26/1120 Page 3 April 2, 2026 segregation and redaction under Exemptions (c): SPD is in possession of Body Worn Camera Footage for Crash 25SOH-205-AC. However, we will be required to make certain redactions to those records in accordance with the Public Records Law. Exemption (a) & Exemption (c): This exemption applies 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; provided, however, that this subclause shall not apply to records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation. The records requested contain information which must be redacted from the records pursuant to this exemption. 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. In making that determination, the department has considered the following factors: (1) whether disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities; (2) whether the materials sought contain intimate details of a highly personal nature; and (3) whether the same information is available from other sources. See People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Department of Agricultural Resources, 477 Mass. 280, 292 (2017). To make these redactions, we are required to devote more than 2 hours of time to search for, compile, segregate, redact and/or reproduce the requested records. . . . The Department is in possession of body-worn camera footage from three (3) officers who responded to the same incident, totaling approximately one (1) hour of video. Each recording must be reviewed in its entirety and may require frame- by-frame analysis to identify and redact protected information pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Massachusetts Public Records Law. As a result, the time required to process these records is significant. Should the requester narrow the scope of the request, for example, by identifying specific officers, timeframes, or portions of the footage—the Department may be able to reduce both the time required for review and the associated cost. 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.

Lieutenant Sean P. McCarthy SPR26/1120 Page 4 April 2, 2026 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: The lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill to complete the segregation and redaction is, Lt. Sean McCarthy whose normal hourly rate is $53.16. This is because he is the only records access officer, with access to the BWC software system, and the lowest paid one certified to understand the public records law. I wanted to further articulate why I put forth this petition. 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 myself. Each video must be reviewed frame by frame to identify and obscure sensitive material, including victims, juveniles, and protected information. Because this work is highly specialized and cannot be reasonably performed by untrained personal, I believe it meets the criteria for exemption ‘C’. … 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 $53.16 per hour 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 $53.16 per hour for review as described above. The requestor is advised that they may appeal the Office’s fee estimate within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). This office encourages the requestor and the Department 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). Please note, the requestor 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).

Lieutenant Sean P. McCarthy SPR26/1120 Page 5 April 2, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Sweeney Merrigan Law