Kade Crockford v. Revere, City of - Police Department (SPR 20252408)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 28, 2025 SPR25/2408 Captain Thomas J. Malone Records Access Officer Revere Police Department 400 Revere Beach Parkway Revere, MA 02151 Dear Captain Malone: I have received the petition of Kade Crockford, of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Massachusetts, appealing the response of the Revere 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 June 25, 2025, Mx. Crockford requested: 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 Revere; 4. Flock Network Audits, documenting all searches of license plate reader data conducted by entities outside Revere; 5. All records of communication mentioning license plate readers or Flock Safety technology, including emails and text messages; and 6. Any RPD policy or procedures describing how license plate reader data is collected, processed, accessed, used, and/or shared. The Department responded on August 8, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mx. Crockford petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2408, was opened as a result. 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 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

Capt. Thomas J. Malone SPR25/2408 Page 2 August 28, 2025 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. Att’y 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 August 8th Response In its August 8, 2025 response, the Department produced records responsive to Item 1 of the request, redacted pursuant to Exemptions (c) and (n) of the Public Records Law. The Department stated that it possessed no records responsive to Items 2, 3, 4, and 6. The Department further stated that Item 6 of the request was overly broad, and sought “a narrower inquiry.” Current Appeal In their August 15, 2025 petition to this office, Mx. Crockford objected to the Department’s statement that it possessed no records relating to “Flock audits.” Mx. Crockford did not object to the redaction of responsive records under Exemptions (c) and (n). Based on Mx. Crockford’s appeal and the Department’s response, it is unclear if the Department possesses records responsive to the request. The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those 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). Additionally, 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). Consequently, the Department must clarify whether it possesses records responsive to the request. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mx. Crockford with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Mx. Crockford may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Capt. Thomas J. Malone SPR25/2408 Page 3 August 28, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Kade Crockford