Styler, Jack v. Department of State Police (SPR 20260315)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 13, 2026 SPR26/0315 Allison Mondello Public Records Manager Massachusetts Department of State Police 50 Maple Street Milford, MA 01757 Dear Ms. Mondello: I have received the petition of Jack Styler, of Provincetown Independent, appealing the response of the Department of State Police (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 19, 2025, Mr. Styler requested the following records: [1] Organization Audit in Flock The report should include data logged from the period of September 1, 2024 to the date this request is processed. Per Flock’s documentation, the Organization Audit is available within the Insights tab and is defined as searches done within the agency. [2] Network Audit in Flock This report should include data logged from the period of September 1, 2024 to the date this request is processed. Per Flock’s documentation, the Network Audit is available within the Insights table and is defined as searches of the organization’s Flock network by any agency in the Flock System. [3] Number of requests and the usage reasons for making requests related to all Flock or other license plate reading cameras on Cape Cod and/or Flock or other License plate reading cameras that monitor the bridges that connect Cape Cod to mainland Massachusetts — the Sagamore and Bourne bridges. This could be logged under the “reason” tab for each request. Mr. Styler modified his request on December 11, 2025, as follows: Please see the amended request here: I am requesting the data logged by the license plate reading cameras on the Bourne and Sagamore Bridges run by the Massachusetts state police through the company Vigilant Solutions (with the 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

Allison Mondello SPR26/0315 Page 2 February 13, 2026 parent company Motorola). I am specifically requesting one month’s worth of data collected by those cameras in the month of November 2025. I am also requesting any and all records, emails, or other communications made by government agencies (state or federal) that have requested to see, use, or otherwise obtain this data from these cameras in the last year (January 1, 2025 to the date this request is received.). The Department responded on December 8, 2025 and January 30, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Department’s responses, Mr. Styler petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0315, 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 December 8th and January 30th Responses In its December 8, 2025 response, the Department stated, “... ‘the Department does not utilize Flock ALPR systems. Accordingly, it does not possess any Flock ALPR system audit logs’. The Department also indicated “[y]our request for ‘Number of requests and the usage reasons for making requests related to all Flock or other license plate reading cameras on Cape Cod and/or Flock or other license plate reading cameras that monitor the bridges that connect Cape Cod to mainland Massachusetts — the Sagamore and Bourne bridges,’ does not provide a reasonable description of the records you are seeking.” In its January 30, 2026 response, the Department cited Exemption (n) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested records in their entirety.

Allison Mondello SPR26/0315 Page 3 February 13, 2026 Exemption (n) Exemption (n) permits the withholding of: 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.” PETA, 477 Mass. at 289-90. 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 “[because 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 response, the Department states, The Department neither confirms nor denies the existence of responsive records, as such disclosure would reveal the existence or nonexistence of camera locations throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Department’s Division of Homeland Security and Preparedness is responsible for the administration of the Department’s Automatic License Plate Recognition (ALPR) system. Automatic license plate recognition (also commonly referred to as automated license plate reader) technology uses cameras to capture images of

Allison Mondello SPR26/0315 Page 4 February 13, 2026 license plates and computer algorithms such as Optical Character Recognition (OCR) to convert the images to readable text data. The data generated by ALPR devices includes the license plates observed by the ALPR device, the date and time of reads, the ALPR device that sourced the reads, and related data. The Department is denying your request pursuant to the safety and security exemption, G.L. c. 4, §7, cl. 26 (n). The Department has determined that the requested records relate to security and safety of persons and would reveal security measures and threat preparedness that a terrorist would find useful to maximize damage and, therefore, their release would likely jeopardize public safety. Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear if the Department possesses records responsive to the request. 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 . . .”). Therefore, the Department must identify the records it has in its possession that it withheld under Exemption (n). Further based on the Department’s response, although the Department states that it “. . . has determined that the requested records relate to security and safety of persons[,]” it is not clear how the requested data relates to security and safety of persons, nor has the Department demonstrated how the records are the type that “a terrorist would find useful to maximize damage” as required under Exemption (n). PETA, 477 Mass. at 289. Further, the Department did not provide sufficient factual heft to support withholding of the requested records pursuant to Exemption (n). Specifically, the Department has not sufficiently explained how the disclosure of the requested information is likely to jeopardize public safety. See PETA, at 289-90. Further, it is uncertain how the records may be withheld in their entirety. The Department must clarify whether segregable portions of the records can be provided. See Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). The Department must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Styler 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. Mr. Styler may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Allison Mondello SPR26/0315 Page 5 February 13, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jack Styler