FOIA DUMP: LETF Spending by the police

LETF funds don’t need city council permission to spend and are used as needed by the police for their needs as they come up, with certain parameters. These purchases are never publicized and are only seen when requested as a public record.

THIS FOIA DUMP GOES WITH THIS EARLIER REPORT LISTING LARGE VEHICLE PURCHASES

The guide on what the LETF funds can be used for can be read below. (CLICK TO ENLARGE PAGES)

THE REQUEST

1) Please send documentation of all spending over $1000 from the LETF for items purchased between June 1 2021 and the present.  This request can be met with a spreadsheet or LETF balance sheet.

2) For any purchase over $1000 out of the LETF between June 1 2021 and the present, please document the purchase with a vendor reciept or invoice.  If an itemized list is available for any purchase, please include it. 

3) For any new or used vehicle purchase out of the LETF between June 1 2021 and the present, please send the dealership or vehicle source invoice and itemized list of features.  If any of these vehicles were sent out for further customizations through a third party, please include an itemized list from those vendors.  

4) For any new or used vehicle purchase paid for by ANY SOURCE between June 1 2021 and the present, please send the dealership or vehicle source invoice and itemized list of features.  If any of these vehicles were sent out for further customizations through a third party, please include an itemized list from those vendors.  

THE RESPONSE:
Click to Enlarge Images Below

The records related to your request are attached. These records were redacted using guidelines set by the State of Massachusetts. The exemptions related to these redactions are explained below. 

Exemption (f):  This exemption applies to “investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of the public view by law enforcement or other investigatory officials 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.”  While this exemption is not a blanket exemption is applies to such information, the disclosure of which would prejudice investigative efforts.  In particular, it applies to information related to ongoing investigations, confidential investigative techniques and information which directly or indirectly identifies witnesses or informants.  The records requested contain information pertaining to investigative tools and equipment used in the furtherance of law enforcement activities by the Framingham Police Department. As a result, such information must be redacted under the law.

Exemption (n):  This exemption 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.”  In particular, this exemption is intended to secure the safety of persons and public places by restricting access to records that may have been previously open to public inspection. The nature of the exemption requires a records custodian to make some value judgment regarding the requester in order to decide whether to release the information sought.  Pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Judicial Court in People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280 (2017) exemption (n) is to be construed using the following two prongs: (1) whether, and to what degree, the record is one a terrorist would find useful to maximize damage, and in that sense, jeopardize public safety; and (2) 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.  These prongs must be considered together due to the inverse correlation between them.  You have advised that you are requesting these records related to financial expenses by the Framingham Police Department.  The records requested contain information pertaining to the Framingham Police computer network and security measures put in place to secure this network from intrusion. As a result, such information must be withheld/redacted under the law.