Armitano, Ethan v. Dartmouth, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20260905)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 20, 2026 SPR26/0905 Nicole Perullo Records Access Officer Dartmouth Police Department 1390 Tucker Road Dartmouth, MA 02747 Dear Ms. Perullo: On March 13, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the Dartmouth Police Department (Department) seeking 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, Ethan Armitano. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L.c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). In two separate requests on March 2, 2026 and on March 3, 2026, Mr. Armitano requested the following: March 2nd Request: [1] Any and all contracts, agreements, memoranda of understanding, purchase orders, invoices, renewals, or other documents reflecting the acquisition, licensing, subscription, or use of the TIP411 system, Citizen Observer services, or any similar anonymous tip-reporting platform. [2] Any and all communications between the City of East Providence Police Department and Citizen Observer, LLC, Kent County Coalition, or any other governmental entity or organization concerning the implementation, funding, maintenance, or use of the TIP411 system. [3] Any and all policies, procedures, general orders, protocols, guidance documents, or directives governing the receipt, review, categorization, documentation, investigation, or response to tips received through TIP411 or any similar anonymous tip-reporting system. [4] Any and all training materials, lesson plans, PowerPoint presentations, written instructions, memoranda, or other documents used to train officers, dispatch 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

Nicole Perullo SPR26/0905 Page 2 March 20, 2026 personnel, supervisors, or administrative staff regarding the TIP411 system or anonymous tip-reporting procedures. [5] Any and all training materials, lesson plans, PowerPoint presentations, written instructions, memoranda, or other documents used to train officers, dispatch personnel, supervisors, or administrative staff regarding Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) training responding to anonymous tips and/or TIP411 intel. [6] Any documents identifying personnel responsible for monitoring, reviewing, or responding to TIP411 submissions, including any written role descriptions or assignment memoranda. [7] Any documents reflecting how TIP411 tips are recorded, retained, stored, or integrated into CAD, RMS, or other departmental record-keeping systems. This request seeks records from January 1, 2021, to the present. March 3rd Request: [1] Any and all contracts, agreements, memoranda of understanding, purchase orders, invoices, renewals, or other documents reflecting the acquisition, licensing, subscription, or use of the TIP411 system, Citizen Observer services, or any similar anonymous tip-reporting platform. [2] Any and all communications between the City of Dartmouth Police Department and Citizen Observer, LLC, Kent County Coalition, or any other governmental entity or organization concerning the implementation, funding, maintenance, or use of the TIP411 system. [3] Any and all policies, procedures, general orders, protocols, guidance documents, or directives governing the receipt, review, categorization, documentation, investigation, or response to tips received through TIP411 or any similar anonymous tip-reporting system. [4] Any and all training materials, lesson plans, PowerPoint presentations, written instructions, memoranda, or other documents used to train officers, dispatch personnel, supervisors, or administrative staff regarding the TIP411 system or anonymous tip-reporting procedures. [5] Any and all training materials, lesson plans, PowerPoint presentations, written instructions, memoranda, or other documents used to train officers, dispatch personnel, supervisors, or administrative staff regarding Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) training responding to anonymous tips and/or TIP411 intel. [6] Any documents identifying personnel responsible for monitoring, reviewing, or

Nicole Perullo SPR26/0905 Page 3 March 20, 2026 responding to TIP411 submissions, including any written role descriptions or assignment memoranda. [7]Any documents reflecting how TIP411 tips are recorded, retained, stored, or integrated into CAD, RMS, or other departmental record-keeping systems. This request seeks records from January 1, 2021, to the present. Petition to Assess Fees – Municipalities The Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) may approve a petition from a municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting or to charge in excess of $25 per hour, if the Supervisor determines that 1) the request is for a commercial purpose or 2) the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). In rendering such a decision, the Supervisor is required to consider the following: a) the public interest served by limiting the cost of public access to the records; b) the financial ability of the requestor to pay the additional or increased fees; and c) any other relevant extenuating circumstances. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). The statute sets out a two-prong test for determining whether the Supervisor may approve a municipality’s petition to allow the municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting records. The first prong is whether the request for records was made for a commercial purpose. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). It is my determination that this request was not made for a commercial purpose. The second prong of the test is whether the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. The Supervisor must consider 1) if the fee is necessary such that the request could not have been prudently completed without the redaction or segregation or fee in excess of $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.05) per page may be assessed for a black and white single or double-sided photocopy of a public record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(i). Municipalities may not assess a fee for the first 2 (two) hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested unless the municipality has 20,000 people or less. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Where appropriate, municipalities may include as part of the fee an hourly rate equal to or less than the hourly rate attributed to the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill required to search for,

Nicole Perullo SPR26/0905 Page 4 March 20, 2026 compile, segregate, redact or reproduce a record requested, but the fee shall not be more than $25 per hour. Id. However, municipalities may charge more than $25 per hour if such rate is approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). A fee shall not be assessed for time spent segregating or redacting records unless such segregation or redaction is required by law or approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). Current Petition In its petition, in addition to charging for segregation and redaction required by law under Exemption (a), the Department argues the following in support of its request to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (b), (c), (f), and (n): Exemption (c): Officers computer screen, social security numbers, and license number(s) - This exemption applies to “personnel and medical files or information; also, any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” The records requested contain information which, if disclosed, would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Such information contains intimate details, and the privacy interests involved outweigh the public interests in the disclosure of that information. Exemption (f): Witness/victim information - This exemption applies to “investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of the public view by law enforcement or any other investigatory officials; that the disclosure of which materials would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest.” The above requested records contain confidential witness information; therefore, redactions are appropriate to preserve the anonymity of voluntary witnesses. This exemption is also intended to allow investigative officials to provide an assurance of confidentiality to private citizens so that they will speak openly and voluntarily about such matters.… The disclosure of the names and other identifying information of victims, complainants and voluntary witnesses may deter other potential witnesses and citizens from providing information to law enforcement agencies in future investigations. Disclosure would so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public’s interest. … Exemption (b): Internal Rules and Practices: This exemption applies to “records that are related solely to internal personnel rules and practices of the government unit, provided however, that such records shall be withheld only to the extent that proper performance of necessary governmental functions requires such

Nicole Perullo SPR26/0905 Page 5 March 20, 2026 withholding”. The requested records contain information that reveals law enforcement techniques and tactics which, if it were public knowledge, would significantly inhibit the effectiveness, overall success, and proper performance of the Department. Exemption (n): Facilities Security: 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 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 (b) of section 10 of chapter 66, is likely to jeopardize public safety and cyber security.” The record(s) requested contain information which, if disclosed, would jeopardize public safety. In light of the Department’s petition, I find the Department has met its burden to explain how, given the nature of the responsive records, the request could not prudently be completed without redaction or segregation. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). To the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the Department may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of such exempt material. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Conclusion Accordingly, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the Department may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. I encourage the parties to communicate further to enable the Department to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. Please note, Mr. Armitano has the right to seek judicial review of this decision by commencing a civil action in the appropriate superior court. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(c), 10(d)(iv)(4), 10A(c). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Ethan Armitano