Oshea Smith v. Bristol County Sheriff's Office (SPR 20252586)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 9, 2025 SPR25/2586 Michael C. Arnold Public Records Access Officer Bristol County Sheriff’s Office 400 Faunce Corner Road Dartmouth, MA 02747 Dear Mr. Arnold: On September 2, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Bristol County Sheriff’s Office (Office/BCSO) seeking relief from the obligation to produce 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, I understand that the Office furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor, Oshea Smith, of Records Retrieval Solutions. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On August 27, 2025, Oshea Smith requested the following: [A]ny contracts, purchase orders, or master service agreements (including but not limited to price and cost information and expiration date and contract terms) that are currently in effect or that have been in effect within the past three (3) years with the following vendors: - Motorola Solutions (Avigilon, Vigilant, CommandCentral, CAPE) - Axon (Fusus, body cams, evidence, RTCC) - Genetec (Security Center, AutoVu, Mission Control, Clearance) - Verkada (cloud cameras + access control) - Skydio (drones, Dock 2, DFR) - Flock Safety (LPR, ALPR network, Aerodome DFR) - Rekor (ALPR/vehicle intelligence) - CentralSquare (CAD/RMS/NG911) - SoundThinking (ShotSpotter) (gunshot detection, acoustic analytics) - BriefCam (video analytics) - Auror (retail crime intelligence sharing) - Dedrone (counter-UAS) - LVT / LiveView Technologies (mobile surveillance towers) - Paladin (DFR drones) - BRINC (tactical/indoor drones) 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

Michael C. Arnold SPR25/2586 Page 2 September 9, 2025 - Nightingale Security (drone-in-a-box perimeter defense) - Aerodome (DFR drones, now Flock Aerodome) - Axis Communications (cameras, VMS, access) - Hikvision (cameras, VMS; restricted in many U.S. SLED deals due to NDAA/FCC constraints) - Peregrine (public safety RTCC/data platform) - Central Square - Tyler Technologies - NeoGov In an email to this office and the Office on September 2, 2025, Oshea Smith objected to the Office’s petition. Petitions for an Extension of Time and for Relief from the Obligation to Provide Records Under the Public Records Law, upon a showing of good cause, the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) may grant a single extension to an agency not to exceed 20 business days and a single extension to a municipality not to exceed 30 business days. In determining whether there has been a showing of good cause, the Supervisor shall consider, but shall not be limited to considering: (i) the need to search for, collect, segregate or examine records; (ii) the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure; (iii) the capacity or the normal business hours of operation of the agency or municipality to produce the request without the extension; (iv) efforts undertaken by the agency or municipality in fulfilling the current request and previous requests; (v) whether the request, either individually or as part of a series of requests from the same requestor, is frivolous or intended to harass or intimidate the agency or municipality; and (vi) the public interest served by expeditious disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). If the Supervisor determines that the request is part of a series of contemporaneous requests that are frivolous or designed to intimidate or harass, and the requests are not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity, the Supervisor may grant a longer extension or relieve the agency or municipality of its obligation to provide copies of the records sought. Id. The filing of a petition does not affect the requirement that a Records Access Officer (RAO) shall provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(b).

Michael C. Arnold SPR25/2586 Page 3 September 9, 2025 Request for Relief In its petition, the Office requests that “the supervisor of records relieve the BCSO of its obligation to provide copies of the records sought.” In support of its request for relief, the Office provides a copy of a “business profile” and argues the following: Please see attached for the Better Business Bureau posting of the companies information and also a link to an article from the “Indy Star” that names “Records Retrieval Solutions” a possible non-legitimate company that is involved with phishing scams. The BCSO notes that the address and number provided in the request do not match the company’s information listed with the Better Business Bureau, the address is not even in the same state. In the September 2, 2025 email to this office and the Office, Oshea Smith argues the following: Our organization is in no way affiliated with the entity referenced in [the Office’s] letter or in the Indy Star article. It is not uncommon for businesses to share similar names, but we are an entirely separate and legitimate requester. We have already been in contact with the Indy Star regarding inaccuracies in that article. Based on the information provided in the Office’s petition, I find that the Office has not demonstrated that the request is frivolous and not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity, as required by G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). Conclusion Accordingly, I am unable to grant the Office’s request for relief from the obligation to produce responsive records. Please be aware, this office may deny an appeal if, in the opinion of the Supervisor of Records, the request is made for a commercial purpose. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b)(3). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Oshea Smith