Lougee, Alden v. Provincetown, Town of- Police Department (SPR 20260503)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 26, 2026 SPR26/0503 Barbara Peters Records Clerk Provincetown Police Department 2 Jerome Smith Road Provincetown, MA 02657 Dear Ms. Peters: I have received the petition of Alden Lougee appealing the response of the Provincetown 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 January 4, 2026, Mr. Lougee requested the following related to an identified individual: [1] Video and Audio Recordings [a] All body-worn camera footage of any police interaction involving me[;] [b] All body-worn camera footage of any visit to my residence, including visits on or about December 30-31, during which officers stated their cameras were active[;] [c] Footage from initial responding officers who visited and departed, as well as footage from the subsequent supervisory visit, including any supervisor-worn camera footage[;] [d] Any audio recordings, including radio transmissions, dispatch audio, call recordings, or other audio recordings reviewed, received, relied upon, or referenced by police, including recordings provided by any third party[;] [2] Dispatch, Call Logs, and Incident Records [a] All dispatch entries, CAD logs, call sheets, incident numbers, and narratives referencing me or my residence[;] [b] Any records reflecting escalation, supervisor involvement, or secondary responses following an initial determination that no emergency existed[;] [3] Emails and Correspondence (Internal and External) 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

Barbara Peters SPR26/0503 Page 2 February 26, 2026 [a] All emails, attachments, and electronic correspondence sent to or from members of the Provincetown Police Department that reference me by name, address, or identifying information[;] [b] All correspondence between the Police Department and [an identified individual], or any member of her family, that references me[;] [c] All records reflecting the sharing, forwarding, summarizing, or disclosure of emails or communications I sent to the Chief of Police, including any records showing how those communications came into the possession of third parties[;] [d] Any correspondence between the Police Department and other landlords, property owners, or third parties referencing me[;] [4] Internal Communications [a] Any internal communications, including emails, memoranda, notes, messages, or logs, that reference me, including communications between officers, supervisors dispatch, or other municipal employees[;] [b] Any records reflecting internal discussion, characterization, or assessment of me, including but not limited to statements relating to housing, alleged criminal activity, or credibility[;] [5] Traffic Stop and Prior Contacts [a] All video, audio, reports, and internal communications related to any traffic stop[;] [b] Any records reflecting prior police contact involving me, including references originating from prior landlords or historical allegations… The Department provided a response on January 6, 2026. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Lougee petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0503, 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. See 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. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a

Barbara Peters SPR26/0503 Page 3 February 26, 2026 records custodian must provide the responsive records. The Department’s January 6th Response In its January 6, 2026 response, a representative of the Department provided Body-Worn Camera footage and stated, “I believe I’ve covered everything in the attachment, though I find your request a bit unclear so if something isn’t covered in the attached letter, please clarify for me exactly what it is you are looking for. The more information the better.” In a January 7, 2026 email to the Department, Mr. Lougee stated, “this is the first video file I have received from you but [yo]u have asked for also type video files of all the visits that occurred at my home I would also like to know if the emails expire that you send files to me in because I cannot find many of the download links provided. The arrest I need with all present officers there’s video files I need [an identified individual’s] video of the search of my room during the massage investigation where [an identified individual] inserted himself into a civil matter and illegally searched my room, and the citation issuance as well as the complaints made against me when they came and took a file about my dog and type assault on the 13th I need all this video files and I have yet to receive them. Basically any of the files provided if they say video I want it which there are many. I downloaded these but they don’t seem to [an identified individual], can you offer Guidance I can ope[n] Them from the email but once in my iPad they stop worming [sic].” Current Appeal In his February 9, 2026 appeal to this office, Mr. Lougee stated, “[t]he body-cam footage I received raises serious concerns. The recording appears edited, contains no metadata, and does not capture the supervisor I was actually speaking with. The voice on the recording comes from someone approximately 20 feet away from the door, not the supervisor who was directly engaged with me at the door…” Further, on February 11, 2026 in an email to this office, Mr. Lougee stated, “the response was completely wiped of metadata, I asked for all the officers cams on the scene, I also specified the supervisors body-cam and I got someone that wasn’t even dealing with me and I also requested a whole lot more then that if you look at the emails that I sent you yesterday…Every time I was supplied with indefensible videos that contained not even a time and date stamp. I would like all the requests I’ve m[a]de redone with unedited, files that contain metadata. But I was very specific about the request that I made on the 4th I would like all the officers body cam footage, metadata, and any exemptions that are made and why. In addition I believe there are many other that were listed In the last request with very specific directions…[sic].” Based on Mr. Lougee’s petition and the Department’s response, it is unclear whether the Department possesses additional responsive records. 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). Consequently, the -- Department must clarify whether it possesses additional records.

Barbara Peters SPR26/0503 Page 4 February 26, 2026 Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Lougee 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. Lougee’s may 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: Alden Lougee