Kade Crockford v. Dartmouth, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20251984)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 16, 2025 SPR25/1984 Nicole Perullo Police Clerk Dartmouth Police Department 1390 Tucker Road Dartmouth, MA 02747 Dear Ms. Perullo: On July 9, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Dartmouth Police Department (Department) requesting permission 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, Kade Crockford. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On June 25, 2025, Ms. Crockford requested, The following records created on or after January 1, 2023, unless another time period is otherwise specified: [1] Contracts, agreements, budget documents, and invoiced documenting DPD use of Flock Safety technology and any other license plate reader technology[;] [2] Training materials pertaining to Flock Safety technology, including its cameras and database systems[;] [3] Flock Organization Audits, documenting all searches of license plate reader data conducted by officials in Dartmouth[;] [4] Flock Network Audits, documenting all searches of license plate reader data conducted by entities in Dartmouth[;] [5] All records of communication mentioning license plate readers or Flock Safety technology, including emails and text messages; 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

Nicole Perullo SPR25/1984 Page 2 July 16, 2025 [6] Any DPD policy or procedures describing how license plate reader data is collected, processed, accessed, used, and/or shared. Petition to assess fees – Municipalities The 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 or to charge in excess of $25 an hour for the provision of public 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 understanding 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 $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Petitions seeking a waiver of statutory limits to fees assessed to segregate and/or redact public records must be made within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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,

Nicole Perullo SPR25/1984 Page 3 July 16, 2025 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 Petition In its petition, the Department requests permission “to charge a fee of $91.36 for the redaction, search, and segregation charges associated with this request and response,” and provides the following information: [W]ith respect to the request, we have the following records: 1 (one) standard policies relating to searches, 1 (one) standard procedure relating to searches, 1 (one) Data Use Memorandum, 3 (three) Flock Safety Certificates, Flock Safety invoices from 2023-2025, 2 (two) Flock Safety Order Forms, 242 (two hundred and forty-two) text messages relating to “Flock Safety,” and “License Plate Reader,” and 115 (one hundred and fifteen) emails relating to “Flock Safety,” and “License Plate Reader” for the records requested. [E]xemption (b): This exemption applies to “records that are related solely to internal personnel rules and practices of the government unit, provided however, that such records shall be withheld only to the extent that proper performance of necessary governmental functions requires such withholding”. The records requested contain information that showcases techniques and tactics that should be kept confidential to not compromise the safety of the officers utilizing such techniques. If the information being withheld was public knowledge it would greatly inhibit the effectiveness, overall success and proper performance of the department. [E]xemption (n): Public Safety: Applies to “records, including, but not limited to, blueprints, plans, policies, procedures and schematic drawings, which relate to internal layout and structural elements, security measures, emergency preparedness, threat or vulnerability assessments, or any other records relating to the security or safety of persons or buildings, structures, facilities, utilities, transportation or other infrastructure located within the commonwealth, the disclosure of which, in the reasonable judgment of the record custodian, subject to review by the supervisor of public records under subsection (b) of section 10 of chapter 66, is likely to jeopardize public safety and/or cyber security.” The record(s) requested contain information which, if disclosed, would jeopardize public safety.

Nicole Perullo SPR25/1984 Page 4 July 16, 2025 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 records, the request could not prudently be completed without segregation or redaction. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Conclusion Accordingly, I find the Department has met its burden to explain how the response could not be prudently completed without redaction or segregation. To the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the Department may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. Additionally, I encourage the parties to communicate further to enable the Department to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. When preparing a fee estimate for the provision of the requested records, the Department is advised to provide a detailed explanation to the requestor indicating why the estimated amount of time is necessary. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv) (requiring the amount of the fee must be reasonable). The Department must provide a response to Kade Crockford within five business days of receipt of this determination. See 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(h)(4). Please note, Ms. Crockford 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: Kade Crockford