Kade Crockford v. Raynham, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20251987)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 14, 2025 SPR25/1987 Captain Peter Beatrice Records Access Officer Raynham Police Department 53 Orchard Street Raynham, MA 02767 Dear Captain Beatrice: On July 9, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Raynham Police Department (Department) seeking 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, of the American Civil Liberties Union. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On June 25, 2025, Ms. Crockford requested the following records between January 1, 2023 and June 25, 2025: [1] Contracts, agreements, budget documents, and invoices documenting RPD 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 Raynham; [4] Flock Network Audits, documenting all searches of license plate reader data conducted by entities outside Raynham; [5] All records of communication mentioning license plate readers or Flock Safety technology, including emails and text messages; [6] Any RPD policy or procedures describing how license plate reader data is collected, processed, accessed, used, and/or shared. 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

Captain Peter Beatrice SPR25/1987 Page 2 July 14, 2025 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 understating 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, 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).

Captain Peter Beatrice SPR25/1987 Page 3 July 14, 2025 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 argues the following in support of its request to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law: The June 25th (6:25 PM) is a request for all records of communication mentioning license plate readers or Flock Safety technology, including emails and text messages. These messages requested are all on or after January 1, 2023. A search of these records located 280 emails that mention “Flock”. A quick perusal search located emails that contained shift summaries containing medical calls (shift summary 08/24/24 (c), bolo’s containing medical/private information/pies (bolo/mental illness info 05/15/2025 (c,f). I also located current criminal investigations (Flock email 10/7 /23 Jewelry scam suspect info/pies) that contain suspect information and evidence of a pending criminal/civil proceeding that have the potential withholding or redaction so as not to prematurely disclose evidence prior to a potential trial (f). Each of these emails would have to be reviewed for similar exemption (c) medical information and exemption (f) statements of witnesses, not required by law. Not to mention, these would need to be checked to make sure there is no exemption (f) pending criminal or civil proceeding in any of these incidents for potential withholding or redaction so as not to prematurely disclose evidence prior to a potential trial. 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. 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).

Captain Peter Beatrice SPR25/1987 Page 4 July 14, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Kade Crockford