Jonathan Gerhardson v. Chicopee, City of - Police Department (SPR 20251748)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 2, 2025 SPR25/1748 Officer Anouson Souvannasane Chicopee Police Department Records Access Officer 110 Church Street Chicopee, MA 01020 Dear Officer Souvannasane: I have received the petition of Jonathan Gerhardson appealing the response of the Chicopee 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 May 15, 2025, Mr. Gerhardson requested: [1] Audit logs/audit trails documenting each time a department account has accessed live or recorded video footage through the Fusus platforms from 1/1/2024 until the date this request is processed…. This data should be stored in a database and so I ask that you provide it to me as a .csv, .xls, or other database filetype. [2] Metadata for each Intelligent AI Alert generated by the department’s Fusus system from 1/1/2024 until the date this request is processed. Fusus Intelligent AI Alerts automatically notify authorized users when Fusus AI-connected cameras detect pre-defined events (e.g. a fight) or profiles (e.g. a vehicle of interest). Please note that I am not requesting the video footage or any personally identifying information associated with the alert, but rather the metadata. Metadata may include, but is not limited to: the type of alert, the date and time of the alert, who received the alert, locations associated with the alert, and algorithmic confidence scores associated with the alert. This metadata should be stored in a database and so I ask that you provide it to me as a .csv, .xls, or other database filetype. The Department responded on May 19, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Gerhardson petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/1748, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the Department provided a further response to this office on June 25, 2025. 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

Anouson Souvannasane SPR25/1748 Page 2 July 2, 2025 The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). “Public records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency or municipality of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. If there are any fees associated with a response, a written good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. The Department’s May 19th Response In its May 19, 2025 response, the Department provided records responsive to Mr. Gerhardson’s request with redactions. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Gerhardson states the following: Initial response with docs (1x pdf, 1x xlsx, 2x png); On record was simply a pdf version of the same spreadsheet I was sent, with the IP address column redacted instead of removed. It exceeded 25 MB in size, but is identical to the attached spreadsheet otherwise, so I’ve substituted the file with a screenshot. Note I am not objecting to Chicopee PD’s withholding of camera IPs at this time, although I personally hope that simply knowing the IP does not pose a cyber risk. My understanding of the fusus system is that it uses 2FA to authenticate viewers of camera feeds. No Duty to Create Records Please note that the duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). Further, under the Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). However, in accordance

Anouson Souvannasane SPR25/1748 Page 3 July 2, 2025 with the Public Records Law, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). In an email to a staff attorney of the Public Records Division on June 25, 2025, the Department asserted: The department provided the requested Fusus logs with the exception of the IP addresses, which were redacted citing Exemption N of the public record law. The AI metadata was not provided as the Chicopee Police Department does not utilize or receive any AI alerts through the Fusus platform…. Initially, Mr. Gerhardson appeared to be satisfied with the response, although he quickly responded with additional questions pertaining to a variety of technical questions which we were unable to answer. The subject of this appeal is what Mr. Gerhardson perceived to be missing or corrupted time stamps present in the provided Fusus logs. The provided logs were modeled after the example cited by Mr. Gerhardson in his original request from Toledo PD so as to furnish a record as true to the request as possible. The provided log contained information that was extracted directly from the Fusus platform and was not edited or redacted in any way other than to remove the IP addresses, which was disclosed in our response. Any missing or corrupted time stamp found in the log is what was compiled by the Fusus program. The Chicopee Police Department is unable to cite a specific example for the ‘missing’ data because the log is complete in its entirety as created by the Fusus platform. Conclusion Where the Department confirmed that it has provided all records responsive to Mr. Gerhardson’s request, and has no duty to create records responsive to the request, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Gerhardson is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jonathan Gerhardson