← Back to Search
Zachary Rideout v. Raynham, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20253000)
Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Public records appeal decision · Filed 10-14-2025
ClosedFee PetitionDecision
SPR 20253000 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Zachary Rideout concerning records held by Raynham, Town of - Police Department, opened 10-14-2025. Type: Fee Petition. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Public records appeal decision.
Case Details
- Case Number
- 20253000
- Case Type
- Fee Petition
- Case Subtype
- Initial
- Status
- Closed
- Requester
- Zachary Rideout
- Custodian
- Raynham, Town of - Police Department
- Date Opened
- 10-14-2025
- Date Closed
- 10-20-2025
PDF Document
Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 20, 2025 SPR25/3000 Captain Peter J. Beatrice Records Access Officer Raynham Police Department 53 Orchard Street Raynham, MA 02767 Dear Captain Beatrice: On October 14, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Raynham Police Department (Department) requesting 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, Zachary Rideout. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On October 7, 2025, Mr. Rideout requested, [t]he following records regarding the Raynham Police Department’s use of Flock Safety (including “FlockOS,” “Flock Safety,” “Flock ALPR,” “Flock AI,” etc.): [1] Contracts & Procurement: All contracts, purchase orders, invoices, quotes, statements of work, NDAs, MOUs, and grant applications/awards related to Flock devices or services. Any amendments, renewals, or termination notices[;] [2] Policies & Governance: Current and past ALPR/Flock policies, SOPs, general/special orders, directives, retention schedules, auditing/oversight procedures, and approved use cases. Any privacy impact assessments, DPIAs, risk assessments, or legal memos regarding ALPR/Flock[;] [3] Deployment & Configuration: A list or map of camera locations (GPS or nearest intersection/block), installation dates, and status (active/inactive). Configuration docs showing alert lists/hotlists used (e.g., NCIC, BOLOs), retention settings, geofencing parameters, and sharing permissions[;] [4] Data, Audits & Metrics (electronic export preferred): Monthly counts (or most granular available) of: detections/reads; “hits”/alerts; officer queries/searches; 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 Captain Peter J. Beatrice SPR25/3000 Page 2 October 20, 2025 shared searches; and confirmed case leads. Audit logs showing user access, searches, and data-sharing events (names may be redacted if required by law). Any internal audits, compliance reports, or external audits by Flock or third parties[;] [5] Sharing & Access: All data-sharing agreements, MOUs, or access lists showing external agencies (local/state/federal) or private entities with access to Raynham PD Flock data, including the Flock “network”/regional sharing configuration. Any requests from outside agencies for Raynham PD Flock data (letters, emails, or portal records)[;] [6] Training & Communications: Training materials, slide decks, handouts, recorded webinars, or certification requirements provided by Flock or used internally. All emails/letters/meeting notes between Raynham PD and Flock Safety (including@flocksafety.com) concerning purchase, deployment, policy, retention, sharing, audits, or performance. Subsequent to the opening of this petition, in an email to this office on October 14, 2025, Mr. Rideout stated, “[I]’m satisfied with what I’ve received and am not seeking further production.” Further, in an email to this office on October 16, 2025, the Department responded “[t]he requestor has requested we disregard the request as what I provided to him already is fine.” In light of the above, it is unnecessary to opine on the Department’s petition for permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Zachary Rideout