← Back to Search
Bin, Peter v. Billerica, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20261531)
Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Public records appeal decision · Filed 04-23-2026
ClosedFee Petition
SPR 20261531 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Bin, Peter concerning records held by Billerica, Town of - Police Department, opened 04-23-2026. Type: Fee Petition. Status: Closed.
Case Details
- Case Number
- 20261531
- Case Type
- Fee Petition
- Status
- Closed
- Requester
- Bin, Peter
- Date Opened
- 04-23-2026
- Date Closed
- 04-28-2026
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 April 28, 2026 SPR26/1531 Lieutenant Robert Beloin Records Access Officer Billerica Police Department 6 Good Street Billerica, MA 01821 Dear Lieutenant Beloin: On April 23, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the Billerica Police Department (Department) seeking an extension of time to produce 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, I understand that the Department furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor, Peter Bin. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On August 25, 2025, Mr. Bin requested “a complete copy of the case’s file…dated 7/7/2012 resulting in the death of [an identified individual][.]” It is my understanding that the Department received this request on September 4, 2025. Prior Petition This request was the subject of a prior fee petition. See SPR25/2695 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 18, 2025). In my September 18th determination, I found that the Department met its burden to assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of exempt material under Exemptions (c) and (f). Subsequently, on April 8, 2026, the Department received Mr. Bin’s payment of its $2,575.00 fee estimate. Petition for an Extension of Time Under the Public Records Law, upon a showing of good cause, the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) may grant a single extension to an agency not to exceed 20 business days and a single extension to a municipality not to exceed 30 business days. In determining whether there has been a showing of good cause, the Supervisor shall consider, but shall not be limited to considering: (i) the need to search for, collect, segregate or examine records; (ii) the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure; 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 Lieutenant Robert Beloin SPR26/1531 Page 2 April 28, 2026 (iii) the capacity or the normal business hours of operation of the agency or municipality to produce the request without the extension; (iv) efforts undertaken by the agency or municipality in fulfilling the current request and previous requests; (v) whether the request, either individually or as part of a series of requests from the same requestor, is frivolous or intended to harass or intimidate the agency or municipality; and (vi) the public interest served by expeditious disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). If the Supervisor determines that the request is part of a series of contemporaneous requests that are frivolous or designed to intimidate or harass, and the requests are not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity, the Supervisor may grant a longer extension or relieve the agency or municipality of its obligation to provide copies of the records sought. Id. The filing of a petition does not affect the requirement that a Records Access Officer (RAO) shall provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(b). Current Petition In its petition, the Department requests an extension of 30 business days and provides the following information in support of its request: The Town intends to produce these records to Mr. Bin. However, given the volume of records on file with the Police Department and the fact that they contain data that will require redactions, such as social security numbers, CORI, and investigation information, on behalf of the Police Department I request an additional 30 business days to produce the responsive records. Please note that, simultaneous with this petition, the Town has contacted the requester seeking a voluntary extension. . . . The request seeks an entire case file that is held by the Police Department and involves a sensitive incident. Many of these documents include information that is required by law to be redacted. Reports in the file may contain identified individual’s social security numbers or driver’s license numbers, which are prohibited from disclosure under Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 93H. The records may also contain criminal offender record information that must be redacted pursuant to M.G.L. c. 6 §172. Additionally, there is likely to be information in the file that may be redacted pursuant to some other exemption to the Public Records Law, such as exemption (c) or exemption (f). As such, each document must be carefully reviewed for such information and redacted accordingly. Lieutenant Robert Beloin SPR26/1531 Page 3 April 28, 2026 The potentially responsive records are voluminous and include both electronic and physical files. The Department will need to review almost 24,000 electronic files, as well as two file boxes of documents to determine which of those records are responsive to this request. It is estimated that this review would require 103 hours of staff time to complete. It would be unreasonable for the Police Department to spend 40 hours a week completing this request. A staff member of the Department would need to put aside all other public safety duties in order to complete the request. Granting an extension to gather records and perform a careful review of the records for exempt information will not chill public transparency. The Department has not previously requested an extension of time to respond to this request. . . . Conclusion The Department submitted their petition on April 23, 2026, more than twenty business days after receipt of Mr. Bin’s request. In light of the fact that the Department has not demonstrated that it submitted a timely petition, an extension of time cannot be granted for the September 4th request. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(d). To the extent possible, the Department must provide records on a rolling basis. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Peter Bin