Stephanie Ebbert v. Milford Police Department (SPR 20253669)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 12, 2026 SPR25/3669 Det. Lt. Kevin O’Loughlin Records Access Officer Milford Police Department 250 Main Street Milford, MA 01757 Dear Det. Lt. O’Loughlin: I have received the petition of Stephanie Ebbert, of the Boston Globe, appealing the response of the Milford 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 December 5, 2025, Ms. Ebbert requested the following: 1. The Milford Police Department’s contract with Flock Safety and any other license plate reader technology in use in town[.] 2. Any Milford Police Department policy describing how license plate reader data is collected, processed, accessed, used, and shared[.] 3. The Milford Police Department’s specific sharing model for its license plate reader data. Is data shared with no other police departments; all Massachusetts police departments; specific departments; or the entire Flock network nationwide? 4. If that sharing model varied at any time in 2025, please provide the different policies and the corresponding time frames. 5. Flock Organization Audits, documenting all searches of license plate reader data conducted by officials in Milford in 2025[.] 6. Flock Network Audits, documenting all searches of license plate reader data conducted by entities outside Milford in 2025[.] 7. All emails and text messages mentioning license plate readers or Flock Safety technology[.] The Department responded on December 10, and December 11, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. Ebbert petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/3669, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, an attorney for the Department provided a further response to Ms. Ebbert and this office on December 19, 2025. 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

Det. Lt. Kevin O’Loughlin SPR25/3669 Page 2 January 12, 2026 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. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Ebbert quotes Items 3 and 4 of her original request, and argues the following: While the Milford Police Department provided an explanation of that sharing model, I followed up, in writing, seeking the model itself. As an example, I provided a copy of the model provided to me by a different police department. . . That department had provided a copy of the “share settings and preferences” it set for its Flock cameras. [The Milford Police Department RAO], who was satisfying my other requests, did not provide such a copy . . . He did not cite a specific exemption, and I am writing to ask if there is a qualifying exemption that would allow the department to withhold such documents. The documents themselves could be particularly instructive. . . . I would like to see the actual settings used by the Milford Police Department. Upon review of Ms. Ebbert’s appeal petition, I understand Ms. Ebbert objects only to the Department’s responses concerning Items 3 and 4 of the request. The Department’s December 10th, 11th and 19th Responses In its December 10, and December 11, 2025 responses, the Department provided numerous responsive records and indicated that it would withhold others. In its December 19, 2025 response, the Department elaborated on its responses to Items 3 and 4 of the request.

Det. Lt. Kevin O’Loughlin SPR25/3669 Page 3 January 12, 2026 Item 3 Exemption (n) Exemption (n) applies to: records, including, but not limited to, blueprints, plans, policies, procedures and schematic drawings, which relate to internal layout and structural elements, security measures, emergency preparedness, threat or vulnerability assessments, or any other records relating to the security or safety of persons or buildings, structures, facilities, utilities, transportation, cyber security or other infrastructure located within the commonwealth, the disclosure of which, in the reasonable judgment of the record custodian, subject to review by the supervisor of public records under subsection (c) of section 10 of chapter 66, is likely to jeopardize public safety or cyber security. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(n). Exemption (n) allows for the withholding of certain records which if released would jeopardize public safety. The first prong of Exemption (n) examines “whether, and to what degree, the record sought resembles the records listed as examples in the statute;” specifically, the “inquiry is whether, and to what degree, the record is one a terrorist ‘would find useful to maximize damage.’” People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280, 289-90 (2017). The second prong of Exemption (n) examines “the factual and contextual support for the proposition that disclosure of the record is ‘likely to jeopardize public safety.’” Id. at 289-90. The PETA decision further provides that “[b]ecause the records custodian must exercise ‘reasonable judgment’ in making that determination, the primary focus on review is whether the custodian has provided sufficient factual heft for the supervisor of public records or the reviewing court to conclude that a reasonable person would agree with the custodian’s determination given the context of the particular case.” Id. PETA also provides that “[t]hese two prongs of exemption (n) must be analyzed together, because there is an inverse correlation between them. That is, the more the record sought resembles the records enumerated in exemption (n), the lower the custodian’s burden in demonstrating ‘reasonable judgment’ and vice versa.” PETA, at 290. In its December 10th response, with regard to Item 3 of the request, the Department states that “The MPD sharing model is set for approval on Massachusetts Law Enforcement Agencies. We are visible to agencies within 100 Miles of the Milford Police Department. We allow access to out-of-state agencies on a case-by-case basis. We do not allow access “nationwide” on the Flock Safety Network.” In its December 11th response, the Department further explains that “we do not release our settings on investigative tools utilized by our department.”

Det. Lt. Kevin O’Loughlin SPR25/3669 Page 4 January 12, 2026 In its December 19th response, under Exemption (n), the Department argues the following: Ms. Ebbert’s initial [Item 3 of the request] apparently references a single document, the Milford Police Department’s specific sharing model for its license plate reader data. What she is actually requesting are the settings on the license plate data reader system. [The RAO] responded, as stated in her correspondence, that the Milford Police Department does “not release … settings on investigative tools utilized by [the] department.” This response is based upon G. L. Ch. 4 sec. 7(26)(n) as the request applies to tactical considerations regarding surveillance equipment and/or deployment strategies that, if disclosed, could jeopardize public safety or cybersecurity. Release of this document could potentially assist individuals in circumventing surveillance, targeting blind spots or undermining an investigative tool, as active investigations by the department are ongoing. Based on the Department’s responses, it is unclear how the requested records resemble the records listed as examples in the statute. See PETA, 477 Mass. at 289. Particularly, it is not clear how the records resemble “blueprints, plans, policies, procedures and schematic drawings” that relate to security measures. It is also uncertain how the records are the type that “a terrorist would find useful to maximize damage” as required under Exemption (n). Where the requested records bear a minimal resemblance to the categories listed in Exemption (n), the burden on the custodian to prove its “reasonable judgment” that disclosure is likely to jeopardize public safety is greatest. See id. at 290 (noting “inverse correlation” between the two prongs of Exemption (n) inquiry). Further, the Department did not provide factual heft to support the withholding of the requested records in their entirety pursuant to Exemption (n). Specifically, the Department has not sufficiently explained how disclosure of the records is likely to jeopardize public safety or cyber security. See PETA, at 289-90. The Department must clarify these matters. Additionally, it is unclear how the records can be withheld in their entirety. The Department must explain whether the records can be redacted so that segregable portions can be provided. See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90 (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Any nonexempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). Item 4 Records in Existence; No Duty to Answer Questions or Create Records 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

Det. Lt. Kevin O’Loughlin SPR25/3669 Page 5 January 12, 2026 knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). With regard to Item 4 of the request, in its December 10th response, the Department states that “our sharing model has not varied in 2025.” In its December 19th response, the Department further explains the following: Reviewing Ms. Ebbert’s correspondence of December 12, 2025, her second item, inquiring as to whether the sharing model varied at any time in 2025, that was addressed by [the RAO] ’s response of December 10, 2025. He stated in item #4 that the sharing model has not varied in 2025, therefore no document exists that can be produced. In this case, where the Department has confirmed that it does not possess records responsive to Item 4, and the Department has no duty to create records or answer questions in response to a public records request, I find that the Department has met its burden in responding to Item 4 of the request. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Ebbert 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. Ms. Ebbert 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: Stephanie Ebbert