Szwyd, Matthew v. Brookline, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20262378)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 30, 2026 SPR26/2060 Amanda Williams Records Clerk Brookline Police Department 350 Washington Street Brookline, MA 02445 Dear Ms. Williams: On June 24, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the Brookline 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, it is my understanding that the Department furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Matthew Szwyd. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On June 9, 2026, Mr. Szwyd requested, “the body camera footage from the arrest of [an identified individual] on February 7th, 2025.” 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 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 Williams SPR26/2378 Page 2 June 30, 2026 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). Petition to Assess Fees In its petition, the Department seeks to charge for segregation and redaction of body camera videos responsive to Mr. Szwyd’s request and indicates that the “body worn camera digital files . . . contain a mix of public and private information.” Subsequently, in an email to this office on June 24, 2026, the Department clarified that in addition to segregation and redaction under G. L. c. 41, § 97D and the Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) statute, as they operate under Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law, it seeks to segregate and redact the responsive records for “personal and identifying, [and] medical” information, as well as information identifying minors, pursuant to Exemption (c). The Department additionally stated that the responsive records “are likely to contain information that is exempt under MGL 4 sec 7(26)(a), exemption . . .(f)[.]” Based on the information provided in its fee petition, I find the Department has met its burden to explain how, given the nature of the responsive body camera videos, the request could

Amanda Williams SPR26/2378 Page 3 June 30, 2026 not prudently be completed without segregation or redaction. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). To the extent the responsive body camera videos contain the exempt information as described above, the Department may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction. Fee in Excess of $25.00 per Hour In its petition, the Department seeks “to increase the hourly fee rate from $25.00 to $37.35, which is the hourly rate of IT Officer[,]” and additionally provides the following in support of its request to charge in excess of $25.00 per hour in producing records responsive to Mr. Szwyd’s request: These files are confidential and maintained separately from other files within our department. Given the sensitive nature of some of these files, department policy specifically requires that these files be maintained in a secure environment, separate from other records. These records are maintained in a server which is maintained in a separate locked office. This separate office is occupied by the Informational Technology Officers in charge of digital records management systems for the Brookline Police Department. Access to this office and these files/servers is highly restricted, and the IT Officers are the lowest ranked persons with access to these files/severs. These officers have specialized training and security clearances to manage, maintain, and secure the digital files associated with the Department body cameras for our RMS. The lowest paid employee with access to these confidential records who can perform the task required for this public records request is the IT Officers of the department. To allow an employee of lower rank/pay access would violate our own department policy on confidentiality and security, and also jeopardize our status as an accredited police department. It would also undermine confidence in the security of these files, which would be detrimental to the ability to conduct effective investigations, the ability to provide effective law enforcement, as well as provide transparency. As no other employee is able to fill this request besides the IT Division Officers, we are petitioning to be allowed to increase the hourly fee rate from $25.00 to $37.35, which is the hourly rate of IT Officer. . . . Upon review 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 assessing a fee in excess of $25.00 per hour. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Accordingly, the Department may assess a fee limited to $37.35 per hour for the above tasks.

Amanda Williams SPR26/2378 Page 4 June 30, 2026 Conclusion Accordingly, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information discussed above, the Department may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Additionally, the Department may assess a fee limited to $37.35 per hour. Please note, Mr. Szwyd 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: Matthew Szwyd