← Back to Search
Kade Crockford v. Norfolk County Sheriff's Office (SPR 20190622)
Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Petitioner won — agency ordered to respond · Filed 03-25-2019
ClosedAppealPetitioner Won
SPR 20190622 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Kade Crockford concerning records held by Norfolk County Sheriff's Office, opened 03-25-2019. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Petitioner won — agency ordered to respond.
Case Details
- Case Number
- 20190622
- Case Type
- Appeal
- Case Subtype
- Initial
- Status
- Closed
- Requester
- Kade Crockford
- Custodian
- Norfolk County Sheriff's Office
- Date Opened
- 03-25-2019
- Date Closed
- 04-04-2019
- Date Request Submitted
- 03-07-2019
- Processing Fees Charged
- 0.00
- Petitions Regarding Fees
- No
- Time to Comply
- NA
- Went to Court
- No
PDF Document
Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records April 4, 2019 SPR19/0622 Kirsten Hughes Norfolk County Sheriffs Office 200 West Street P.O. Box 149 Dedham, MA 02027 Dear Ms. Hughes: I have received the petition of Ms. Kade Crawford appealing the nomesponse of the Norfolk County Sheriffs Office (Office) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § lOA; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, Ms. Crawford requested: "1. Cominunications between any representative of the Norfolk County Sheriffs Office and any representative of any vendor offering any facial-recognition product or service. 2. Internal communications between representatives or employees of the Norfolk County Sheriffs Office relating to any facial-recognition product or service. 3. Documents relating to the Norfolk County Sheriffs Office purchasing or use of facial recognition, including but not limited to: purchase orders, RFPs, licensing agreements, invoices, and contracts (including non-disclosure agreements) related to any facial recognition product or service. 4. Materials relating to how any facial-recognition product or service functions (or functions improperly), including e-mails, handouts, PowerPoint presentations, advertisements, or specification documents. 5. Manuals, policies, procedures, and practices governing the use or monitoring of a facial-recognition product or service or related information or databases. This request includes, but is not limited to: a. Procedures for using, deleting, or retaining photos of subjects to be identified; b. Materials identifying any sources of such photos, such as mobile devices, body cameras, surveillance videos, identification photos, or arrest photos; c. Policies or procedures relating to the legal standard, if any, ( e.g., probable cause, court order, relevance, consent) that is required before using any facial recognition product or service. d. Procedures the agency follows after a positive match, such as requiring independent or in-person verification; e. Permitted uses of the information created·from a positive match. 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 Norfolk County Sheriffs Office SPR19/0622 Page 2 April 4, 2019 6. Training materials related to any facial-recognition product or service by employees of the Norfolk County Sheriffs Office 7. Records relating to any mobile application related to any facial-recognition product or service. 8. Records relating to any public process or debate about any facial-recognition product or service, including meeting agendas or minutes, public notice, analyses, or communications between the Norfolk County Sheriffs Office and elected leaders or county officials." Subsequent to the intervention by a member of the Public Records Division, I learned that the Office had "no record ofreceiving the March 2019 request ... However, [they] received the same request on August 1, 2018 ... and a response was sent." The Office provided "a copy of both the letter we received in August 2018 as well as the response" to this office. Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. Ms. Crockford may appeal the substantive nature of the Office's response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, ~ Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Kade Crockford