Almeida, Jelyssah v. Fall River, City of - Police Department (SPR 20261470)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 30, 2026 SPR26/1470 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 Appeals This request was the subject of a prior petition and appeals. See SPR26/0391 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 10, 2026), SPR26/0730 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 10, 2026), and SPR26/1015 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (April 2, 2026). In my April 2nd 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). 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 SPR26/1470 Page 2 April 30, 2026 The Department responded on April 16, 2026, providing a revised fee estimate. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, and objecting to the fees, Ms. Almeida petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1470, 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: . . . For the categories of Tiverton Police Interviews, 911 Calls, FRPD Interviews, and Images, the Department copied and pasted the exact text from their rejected March 20th estimate, explicitly citing the illegal $35.68 rate (e.g., “$35.68 x .25 = $6.25”). While the final dollar amounts were altered to reflect a $25.00 rate, the Department failed to update its own mathematical equations. . . . [T]hey regurgitated the same arbitrary 4:1 and 2:1 multipliers that your office already rejected. To justify this, the Department dedicated hundreds of words to complaining about the efficacy of their vendor, the Axon Redaction Suite. . . . If the requested records are not released in full, at no cost, by the close of business on Monday, April 20, 2026, I demand that your office: 1. Refer this matter to the Attorney General immediately for civil enforcement under G. L. c. 66, § 10A(b). 2. Issue a final, binding determination that the Department has forfeited its right to assess fees due to statutory non-compliance.

Cheryl Narcizo SPR26/1470 Page 3 April 30, 2026 The Department’s April 16th Fee Estimate In its April 16, 2026 response, the Department provided the following information in support of its $995.31 fee estimate: The Department previously explained the multiplier used in its estimate. This multiplier reflects the average time required to locate responsive footage; initiate and configure automated tools; manually review and process video to ensure redaction compliance; export the redacted files; and prepare them for distribution. Since the inception of the body-worn camera (BWC) program, this methodology has been used to provide good-faith estimates. Notably, the Department has reduced this multiplier over time due to advancements in Axon’s AI tools and increased staff proficiency with the redaction suite. While Axon advertises significant efficiency gains, the Department has not observed reductions approaching the claimed 70% decrease in processing time and questions the baseline used for that comparison. In practice, Axon’s own demonstrations show instances where the AI fails to detect or properly redact individuals, requiring additional manual review and correction. With respect to bulk processing, this function is limited to AI-assisted searching across six predefined categories, tagging items it identifies within multiple videos. This process does not perform actual redactions and, unlike standard workflow, does not allow simultaneous manual processing of video. At present, there is no capability to fully process redactions on more than one video at a time. Additionally, the Department has confirmed—both at the time of the estimate and upon subsequent review—that the surveillance footage obtained by detectives is not compatible with Axon’s redaction suite. Accordingly, this footage must be processed through alternative, more time-intensive methods. There also appears to be confusion regarding the hourly rate applied to different types of media. While the Department’s prior petition approved a rate of $35.68 per hour specifically for BWC footage, the same factors supporting that rate— namely, the level of skill, training, and legal knowledge required to properly review and redact records under Massachusetts Public Records Law—apply equally to other media types, including witness-provided cell phone footage, police interview recordings, surveillance video, 911 audio, and images. The lowest-paid employee qualified to perform this work is [an identified] Detective, assigned to the Information & Investigation Technology (IIT) Unit, whose hourly rate is $35.68. Based on the identical nature of the work across media types, the Department applied this same rate in its assessment.

Cheryl Narcizo SPR26/1470 Page 4 April 30, 2026 However, the Department acknowledges that the original fee petition referenced only BWC footage. Going forward, the Department will ensure that any request for a fee increase clearly identifies all applicable media types. In the interest of providing a good-faith estimate, maintaining compliance with G.L. c. 66, § 10(d), and conserving the time and resources of the Public Records Division, the Department will not seek a fee increase for non-BWC materials in this instance and will apply the statutory rate of $25.00 per hour to those records. New Cost Breakdown[:] Body Worn Camera Footage . . . - $606.56[:]  There are 13 videos totaling 255 minutes  Breakdown o 13 videos totaling 255 minutes.  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 . . . - $245.75[:] 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  $25 x 1.63 = $40.75. 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  $25 x 8 = $200.00  *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

Cheryl Narcizo SPR26/1470 Page 5 April 30, 2026 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)  $25 x .2 = $5 o $40.75 + $200 + $5 = $245.75. Tiverton Police Interview & Surveillance . . . - $52.50[:]  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  $35.68 x 2.1 = $52.50. 911 Calls . . . - $6.25[:]  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 = $6.25 Fall River Police Interviews . . . - $67.50[:]  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 = $67.50 Images . . . - $16.75[:]  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 = $16.75 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

Cheryl Narcizo SPR26/1470 Page 6 April 30, 2026 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  $39.13 x 1.5 = $58.70 Total cost for the requested materials is $995.31. 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 Although the Department has estimated the process of compiling, reviewing, and preparing responsive documents for production will take an added total of 34.32 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

Cheryl Narcizo SPR26/1470 Page 7 April 30, 2026 page. It is additionally unclear how much time is allocated to search, and how much time is allocated for segregation and/or redaction of the records. The Department must clarify these matters with specificity. Further, although the Department states, it “will not seek a fee increase for non-BWC materials in this instance and will apply the statutory rate of $25.00 per hour to those records,” the Department’s calculations are unclear. Specifically the Department must clarify the discrepancies in the following calculations: Tiverton Police Interview & Surveillance . . . $35.68 x 2.1 = $52.50. 911 Calls . . . $35.68 x .25 = $6.25[.] Fall River Police Interviews . . . 148 min / 60 = 2.47[.] $35.68 x 2.7 = $67.50[.] Images . . . $35.68 x .67 = $16.75[.] Evidence Research (Property Room) . . . $39.13 x 1.5 = $58.70[.] For the reasons discussed above, I find the Department must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee of $995.31 assessed in its April 16th 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