Michaela Roberta Martin Strout v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20252828)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 8, 2025 SPR25/2828 Christine O’Donnell, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel Office of the Legal Advisor Boston Police Department 1 City Hall Square Boston, MA 02201 Dear Attorney O’Donnell: I have received the petition of Michaela Roberta Martin Strout, Esq., of the Strategic Litigation Unit, Committee for Public Counsel Services, appealing the response of the Boston 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 May 1, 2025, Attorney Strout requested the following records: [1] Records, including emails, that reflect whether, and to what extent, the Boston Police Department or its employees use “Artificial Intelligence” (“AI”) in the preparation of case-related materials. The preparation of case-related materials, as used herein, includes, but is not limited to, the following: police reports, supplemental reports, interview notes, review of body worn camera footage, transcripts, and expert witness materials. [2] Any and all policies, procedures, or trainings related to the Boston Police Department’s use of AI in the preparation of any case-related materials. [3] Any and all contracts between the Boston Police Department or any of its agents and any company that provides any AI-related service to the Boston Police Department, including, but not limited to, contracts with the company “Mark43”[.] [4] Identification of any other companies or services, regardless of the existence of a contractual relationship, utilized by the Boston Police Department for AI services in the preparation of any case-related materials, including, but not limited to, open access services such as “ChatGPT.” [5] Any and all data kept by the Boston Police Department related to the use of AI in the preparation of any case-related materials. I understand the Department assigned reference number R002221-050125 to this request. 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

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/2828 Page 2 October 8, 2025 Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/1393 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (May 28, 2025). In my May 28th determination, I ordered the Department to provide Attorney Strout with a response to the request. Subsequently, the Department responded on September 5, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Attorney Strout petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/2828, 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 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. Attorney 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 September 5th Response In its September 5, 2025 response, the Department provides records responsive to Items 1 and 2 of the request, provides information relating to Item 4 of the request, and seeks clarification regarding Items 3 and 5 of the request. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Attorney Strout argues the following: The City/BPD persisted in their non-response to my public records request and this office’s appeal determination until September 5, 2025. On that date, they provided a response that was incomplete. On September 8, 2025, I replied to their response clarifying what information we sought pursuant to our original public records request. To date, I have not received any response to my reply. I respectfully ask that the Supervisor order the City/BPD to produce the requested

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/2828 Page 3 October 8, 2025 records, as clarified in our September 8 reply to the City/BPD, in compliance with the public records law, and remind the City/BPD that they must do so with all fees waived due to their failure to provide a timely response that comports with the requirements of G. L. c. 66, § 10 (b). In letter to the Department on September 8, 2025, included with her appeal petition, Attorney Strout provides clarification regarding Items 3 and 5 of the request, and explains the following: Request #3 . . . Please provide the current contract with Mark43, as specifically requested in the original request. BPD may also have misunderstood the original request: to clarify, CPCS seeks any contract with any company that provides any AI service to BPD, even if BPD does not specifically contract that company only for that particular service. For example, Mark43 has numerous AI capabilities built-in to its platform, and therefore its contract with BPD is responsive to CPCS’s request, regardless of whether or not BPD specifically contracts with Mark43 for the purpose of accessing AI services. Any other contract BPD has with any other company that similarly provides integrated AI technology used by the BPD in the preparation of any case-related materials would be responsive to CPCS’s request as well. . . . Request #5 . . . The records sought have been reasonably and clearly described— CPCS seeks any data kept by the Boston Police Department specifically related to the use of AI in the preparation of any case-related materials, as that term was defined in the original public records request. It is unclear how we can further explain or narrow this request, but if BPD has specific questions about the request, CPCS welcomes them. The Chawla case cited by BPD above is inapposite, as CPCS does not seek all records “pertaining to” an entire BPD program or directive; it seeks a specific subset of data regarding BPD’s use of AI in the preparation of case-related materials. Upon review of the appeal petition, it appears that Attorney Strout objects only to the City’s responses to Items 3 and 5 of the request. Records in Existence Please be advised that the duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records 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). Further, under the Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). However, in accordance with the Public Records Law, 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).

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/2828 Page 4 October 8, 2025 Based on the Department’s September 5th response, and the clarification provided in Attorney Strout’s appeal petition, it is unclear whether the Department possesses additional records responsive to Items 3 and 5 of the request. If the Department does possess additional responsive records, it must either provide the records, or cite an exemption to the Public Records Law, and explain with specificity how such an exemption applies to withhold or redact the records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based”). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Attorney Strout with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) 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. Attorney Strout may further appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Michaela Roberta Martin Strout, Esq.