Kade Crockford v. Billerica, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20251995)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 16, 2025 SPR25/1995 Sergeant Andrew J. Devito Records Access Officer Billerica Police Department 6 Good Street Billerica, MA 01821 Dear Sergeant Devito: On July 10, 2025, this office received the petition of Noemi Kawamoto, Esq., of Brooks & DeRensis on behalf of the Billerica 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 26, 2025, Ms. Crockford requested: [1] Contracts, agreements, budget documents, and invoices documenting MPD 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 Malden; [4] Flock Network Audits, documenting all searches of license plate reader data conducted by entities outside Malden; [5] All records of communication mentioning license plate readers or Flock Safety technology, including emails and text messages; [6] Any MPD 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 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

Sergeant Andrew J. Devito SPR25/1995 Page 2 July 16, 2025 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, 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).

Sergeant Andrew J. Devito SPR25/1995 Page 3 July 16, 2025 Current Petition In its petition, in addition to charging for segregation and redaction required by law pursuant to Exemption (a) and the attorney-client privilege, 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: [T]he documents requested are likely to contain information exempt under exemptions (a), (c), or (f), and/or contain attorney-client privileged information. Due to the volume of responsive documents (particularly Requests 3, 4, and 5), the [Department] anticipates it will take a significant amount of time for the [Department] to segregate and redact exempt information. Subsequently, in an email to this office on July 15, 2025, the Department provided the following additional information: [T]he Department believes that the documents requested (particularly Requests 3 and 4) are likely to contain license plate information that would identify the license holder. The Department understands that such information is exempt from disclosure under the Work and Family Mobility Act of 2022 and related regulations promulgated by the Attorney General, specifically 940 CMR 37.04(12)-(13). In addition, where the regulations specifically provide that license plate numbers may not be released where the release would identify a license holder, release of such information would also constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, and the information would also be exempt under exemption (c) of the public records laws. [W]ith respect to Request No. 5 (emails), where the request captures any email mentioning “Flock Safety” or “license plate readers,” the emails may contain communications regarding active investigations the release of which may prejudice effective law enforcement. Such emails may also contain license plate numbers and information identifying a license holder, which is exempt under exemptions (a) and (c) as described above. 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.

Sergeant Andrew J. Devito SPR25/1995 Page 4 July 16, 2025 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