Floyd, Lewis v. Fall River, City of - Police Department (SPR 20261499)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 29, 2026 SPR26/1499 Amanda Matton Staff Services Fall River Police Department 685 Pleasant Street Fall River, MA 02721 Dear Ms. Matton: On April 22, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the Fall River Police Department (Department) seeking a waiver of statutory limits on fees that may be assessed in responding to a public records request and 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, Lewis Floyd. On April 21, 2026, Mr. Floyd requested the following: [1] P.O.S.T. Commission evidence, discipline and records pursuant to 555 CMR 12.01-12.13, in the Possession of the Fall River Police Department, from July 12, 2018 until the date of this request[;] [2] [A]ny and all reports from the Office Of Professional Standards formulated, investigated by or against, involving or ruled upon by [identified individuals] at any time in their employment. This request includes but is not limited to; police reports submitted, sustained or and findings of any kind, reports generated by above named individuals and any other document, voicemails, complaints to, dates of incoming calls, Department website communications regarding misconduct or any record generated in the Office Of Professional standards regarding complaints or misconduct[;] [3] The Policies and Procedures of how to file a complain [sic] with the Office of Professional Standards[;] [4] Policies and Procedures of preservation of incoming recorded calls to the department and outgoing calls from department and whether those recorded calls should be illegally suppressed, destroyed and how they are to be maintained and 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 SPR26/1499 Page 2 April 29, 2026 preserved[;] [5] Policies and Procedures on how to file a police report[;] [6] Policies and Procedures on what constitutes Misconduct[;] [7] Policies and Procedures on preservation of Sally port and other video recordings from the Fall River Police Department and other entities the Fall River Police Control camera footage of[;] [8] Any and all reports of Harassment and or threats to [identified individuals] from July 12, 2018 until the day of this request in regards to Fall River Superior Court Docket 1873CR00440 or [identified individual]. This request is specific to threats made directly against these individuals and the reports generated only by [identified individuals], and all calls that were incoming or outgoing calls from August 1, 2025 until the date of this request. 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.

Amanda Matton SPR26/1499 Page 3 April 29, 2026 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). Petition to Assess Fees In its petition, the Department requests, “time spent on search and segregation.” In support of its petition, the Department provides the following information: As previously outlined, Request #1 and Request #2 seek records maintained exclusively within the Internal Affairs Unit as part of administrative investigations. These materials include sensitive records such as investigative reports and recorded interviews, all of which require careful handling, detailed review, and thorough redaction to ensure compliance with applicable exemptions under the Massachusetts Public Records Law. I find the Department has not met its burden to explain how the response could not be prudently completed without redaction or segregation. Consequently, permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records cannot be granted. Fee in Excess of $25.00 per Hour In its petition, the Department is seeking to charge an hourly rate of $48.37 per hour for this request. The Department provides the following in support of its request to charge fees in excess of $25.00 per hour: As previously outlined, Request #1 and Request #2 seek records maintained exclusively within the Internal Affairs Unit as part of administrative

Amanda Matton SPR26/1499 Page 4 April 29, 2026 investigations. These materials include sensitive records such as investigative reports and recorded interviews, all of which require careful handling, detailed review, and thorough redaction to ensure compliance with applicable exemptions under the Massachusetts Public Records Law. Based on a preliminary assessment, and without the benefit of a fully comprehensive analysis, the Department estimates a minimum of 9,154 hours of work will be required to fulfill these requests. … Due to the sensitive nature of these records, access is restricted to personnel assigned to the Professional Standards Division. At present, only Lieutenant Matthew Mendes and Sergeant Ross Aubin possess the necessary system permissions, training, and expertise to retrieve, review, and appropriately redact the responsive materials. Accordingly, the work required cannot be reassigned to a lower-paid employee. The estimated 9,154 hours reflects the complexity associated with reviewing video and audio files, analyzing investigative reports, and redacting exempt information. Each Internal Affairs matter may include multiple forms of media and documentation, all of which must be individually assessed. This estimate is conservatively based on approximately two hours per Internal Affairs report; however, the Department anticipates that the actual time required will exceed this figure. Additionally, fulfilling these requests will require diverting Professional Standards personnel from their regular duties, thereby impacting departmental operations. I find the Department has not met its burden to explain how the request could not prudently be completed without assessing a fee in excess of $25 per hour. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Conclusion As described above, I find that the Department has not met its burden to explain how the response could not be prudently completed without redaction or segregation nor has it met its burden to assess fees in excess of $25.00. Please note, however, this does not preclude the Department from charging for segregation and redaction that is required by law. Further, this office encourages Mr. Floyd and the Department to continue to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. 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 municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably).

Amanda Matton SPR26/1499 Page 5 April 29, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Lewis Floyd