Kade Crockford v. Taunton, City of - Police Department (SPR 20252010)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 18, 2025 SPR25/2010 Lieutenant John P. Joyce Records Access Officer Taunton Police Department 23 Summer Street Taunton, MA 02780 Dear Lieutenant Joyce: On July 10, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Taunton Police Department (Department) requesting permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records and a waiver of statutory limits on fees that may be assessed in responding to the request. 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 TPD 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 Taunton[;] [4] Flock Network Audits, documenting all searches of license plate reader data conducted by entities outside Taunton[;] [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

Lieutenant John P. Joyce SPR25/2010 Page 2 July 18, 2025 [6] Any TPD 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,

Lieutenant John P. Joyce SPR25/2010 Page 3 July 18, 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 for search, segregation and redaction that is not required by law. The redactions necessary fall under exemptions (c) and (f).” The Department provides the following information in support of its petition: [E]xemption[s] (c) [and (f)]: The records in Items #3 and #4 contain motor vehicle registrations that were queried against the system for investigatory purposes. Each record would need to be researched with the officer that made the query to see if the investigation was ongoing and whether the information was “law enforcement sensitive” as a result. The following fields would need to be segregated and redacted: License Plate, Reason, Filters. These would potentially require redaction under exemption (f) and under exemption (c). Some examples of the entries under the “Reason” field are “invest, shooting, intel....” Each officer that conducted a search would need to be contacted and queried on whether his search was related to an ongoing investigation that might be compromised without redaction of the previously mentioned categories. 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). Fee in Excess of $25.00 per Hour In its petition, the Department requests “permission to charge a fee in excess of the statutory limit of $25.” The Department provides the following in support of its request to charge fees in excess of $25.00 per hour: The request involves emails and text messages which need to be examined for redaction. The civilian clerks that normally handle routine day to day requests for accident reports and routine police reports are not equipped to handle the complex nature of this request or would it be appropriate or feasible for them to examine emails and text messages of officers of all ranks that may be sensitive in nature in a variety of ways. The department requests permission to charge the hourly wage (86.57/hr.) of the Records Access Officer, who is normally directly responsible

Lieutenant John P. Joyce SPR25/2010 Page 4 July 18, 2025 for complex records requests such as this. It is the opinion of the department that the Records Access Officer is the lowest paid employee that is both equipped and has the authority to complete the tasks necessary to complete this complex request. Based on the information provided in the Department’s petition, I find the Department has not met its burden to explain how the request could not prudently be completed without assessing a fee in excess of $25.00 per hour. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Accordingly, permission to charge in excess of $25.00 per hour cannot be granted at this time. Conclusion Accordingly, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information discussed above, the Department may assess a fee for segregation and redaction limited to $25.00 per hour. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). However, I find that the Department has not met its burden to assess a fee in excess of $25 per hour. 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