Persistent Surveillance Systems Invoices (Baltimore Police Department)

Brandon Smith filed this request with the Baltimore Police Department of Baltimore, MD .
Status
Completed

Communications

From: Brandon Smith

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to Maryland's Public Information Act ("PIA"), I hereby request the following records:

All records responsive to the below requests dated from January 1, 2014 through July 28, 2016.
- The full documentation of all contracts or non-disclosure agreements (enacted OR IN EFFECT between the above dates) with the companies "Persistent Surveillance Systems" or "Vigilant Solutions"
- Copies of all invoices to or from these companies, and documents sufficient to show any and all disbursement of public funds to either company
- The full documentation of all contracts (enacted OR IN EFFECT between the above dates) with any company other than the two cited above, in which said company provides your department with equipment or services (including software) for 1. license plate scanning or reading or automatic photographing; 2. aerial surveillance, excluding monitoring roadways for speed infractions.
- Copies of all invoices to or from any company that fits the description in the prior paragraph, and documents sufficient to show any disbursement of public funds to any company that fits this description
- All emails between police department email accounts and users on the domains "pss-1.com" or "vigilantsolutions.com". (One example would be brian.schockley@vigilantsolutions.com. Users on the domain would be in the form of XXXXXXXXX@vigilantsolutions.com)
- All paper-based communications between your department and Persistent Surveillance Systems, and between your department and Vigilant Solutions. In asking for all paper and electronic correspondence, this request necessarily includes marketing materials and descriptions of product capabilities for any device, software, or access/capability this department has purchased. A circuit court judge in Illinois recently ruled that non-disclosure agreements signed by public bodies do not trump freedom of information laws when it comes to surveillance equipment/capability purchased by police. Citation:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/chicago-police-must-finally-produce-stingray-records-judge-orders/
- Documents sufficient to show all rules or regulations governing the use of products (hardware or software) that do 1. license plate scanning or reading or automatic photographing; 2. aerial surveillance, excluding monitoring roadways for speed infractions.
- The text of all agreements (whether formal, email, memo, or otherwise) between your department and any other public body or department that allows your department to use or access the capabilities of 1. license plate scanning or reading or automatic photographing; 2. aerial surveillance, excluding monitoring roadways for speed infractions.
- Documents sufficient to show the month and year your department first entered a program of scanning license plates or accessing a database of scanned plates, if it indeed has such a program (and end date of said program if it has ended).
- Documents sufficient to show the total number of license plates scanned in your department's jurisdiction (whether the jurisdiction in this case is precisely or roughly represented) since the department began its plate-scanning program or first purchased access to such a program
- Documents sufficient to show the month and year your department first entered a program of persistent aerial surveillance, if it indeed has such a program (and end date of said program if it has ended).
- Documents sufficient to show the number of plane-hours of aerial surveillance (excluding monitoring roadways for speed infractions) purchased by your department within the dates at the top of this request. For example, one plane flying for four hours is four plane-hours. Two planes flying for four hours is eight plane-hours.
- Documents sufficient to show any attempt made by a representative of your department to inform the public about automatic license plate readers or persistent aerial surveillance. This could include but is not limited to records of town hall meetings, quotes from police spokespeople in local media, or text from the department's website.

The requested documents will be made available to the general public, and this request is not being made for commercial purposes.

In the event that there are fees, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 10 business days, as the statute requires.

Sincerely,

Brandon Smith

From: DCU

The Custodian of Records for BPD's Homeland Security is reviewing requests for records concerning Persistent Surveillance Systems and will provide all disclosable records upon completion of the review. The Baltimore Police Department held a press conference on this matter on August 24, 2016 and can be found at https://www.youtube.com/user/BPDMEDIAUNIT?blend=2&ob=5

Sincerely,

Wayne Brooks
Assistant to Legal Affairs
Baltimore Police Department
100 N Holiday St., Room 100,
Baltimore, Md. 21202
DCU@baltimorepolice.org<mailto:DCU@baltimorepolice.org>

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in or attached to this e-mail message may be a privileged and confidential attorney/client communication, or otherwise confidential, and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are notified that any distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the Legal Affairs Division immediately by telephone at 410-396-2496 and DELETE the message from your system immediately. Thank you.

The materials in this e-mail are private and may contain sensitive law enforcement information. Please note that e-mail is not necessarily confidential or secure. Use of e-mail constitutes your acknowledgment of these confidentiality and security limitations. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized use, disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited as covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender via telephone or return e-mail.

From: DCU

Good Afternoon,

The Office of Legal Affairs has been working with the different Custodian(s) of the Baltimore Police Department on the response(s) to your Thirteen (13) separate requests for records as made below.

The Office of Legal Affairs believes that you should have all or at least partial response(s), with responsive records, to many if not all of your requests, by not later then close of business tomorrow, Wednesday the 14th.

Thank you.

Brent Schubert
Attorney for Baltimore Police Department

From: DCU

September 15, 2016

MuckRock
Dept MR 27384
411A Highland Ave
Somerville, MA 02144-2516

Re: Maryland Public Information Request

Dear Requester,

In your correspondence on or about August 1, 2016, you submitted a request for records to the Baltimore Police Department (“BPD”) wherein you made Thirteen (13) separate requests for government records. The Maryland Public Information Act (“MPIA”), Annotated Code of Maryland, General Provisions Article, § 4-101, et seq. governs your request.

This correspondence will serve to respond and provide you with an update regarding each one of your Thirteen (13) separate requests, as follows:

1: The full documentation of all contracts or non-disclosure agreements (enacted OR IN EFFECT between the above dates) with the companies "Persistent Surveillance Systems" or "Vigilant Solutions".

RESPONSE:

Per the Custodians, there were no contracts entered into between the BPD and Vendor: Persistent Surveillance Systems (“PSS”), nor where there any Non-disclosure agreements between BPD and Persistent Surveillance System. All funding for the Pilot program was provided by and through private donations in the form of gifts.

Additionally, the Custodian has advised BPD has no contract or any business relationship with Company: Vigilant Solutions.

2: Copies of all invoices to or from these companies, and documents sufficient to show any and all disbursement of public funds to either company

RESPONSE:

The Custodian WatchCenter Division of BPD has searched and provided records to this Office for review.

The Office of Legal Affairs is in the process of reviewing the records provided by the Custodian.

To this end, review of the records for disclosure in whole or part, has not been accomplished by the date of this letter. Once all responsive records have been reviewed, all disclosable records will be forwarded to your attention under this request.

Additionally, Per the Custodian, there were no public funds used or dispersed in association with the PSS pilot program. All funding came from private donations in the form of gifts.

Additionally, the Custodian has advised BPD has no contract or any business relationship with Company: Vigilant Solutions, and therefore is not in possession of any invoices from said Company.

3: The full documentation of all contracts (enacted OR IN EFFECT between the above dates) with any company other than the two cited above, in which said company provides your department with equipment or services (including software) for 1. license plate scanning or reading or automatic photographing; 2. aerial surveillance, excluding monitoring roadways for speed infractions.

RESPONSE:

Pertaining to your request for: “The full documentation of all contracts (enacted OR IN EFFECT between the above dates) with any company other than the two cited above, in which said company provides your department with equipment or services (including software) for 1. license plate scanning or reading or automatic photographing.”

The Custodian for BPD’s Fiscal Section has been requested to search and provide any and all Contracts in its possession pertaining to Company: Selex ES Inc, DBA as ELSAG North America, the Vendor supplying License Plate Readers to the Baltimore Police Department. When the Custodian is finished its search, any records located by the Custodian as responsive will be reviewed and then forwarded to your attention under this request. Additionally, BPD will advise that the Bureau of Purchasing for Baltimore City may be in possession of records responsive to this request, concerning records pertaining to materials bought from company: Selex ES Inc, DBA as ELSAG North America.

For your request pertaining to: “The full documentation of all contracts (enacted OR IN EFFECT between the above dates) with any company other than the two cited above, in which said company provides your department with equipment or services (including software) for2. aerial surveillance, excluding monitoring roadways for speed infractions.” The Custodian has advised that no other vendor, aside from PSS, has provided the described services.

4: Copies of all invoices to or from any company that fits the description in the prior paragraph, and documents sufficient to show any disbursement of public funds to any company that fits this description.

RESPONSE:

The Custodian for BPD’s Fiscal Section has been requested to search and provide any and all Invoices in its possession pertaining to Company: Selex ES Inc, DBA as ELSAG North America, the Vendor supplying License Plate Readers to the Baltimore Police Department. When the Custodian is finished its search, any records will be reviewed and then forwarded to your attention under this request. Additionally, BPD will advise that the Bureau of Purchasing for Baltimore City may be in possession of records responsive to this request, concerning records pertaining to materials bought from company: Selex ES Inc, DBA as ELSAG North America.

For your request pertaining to: “All invoices to or from any company that fits the description in the prior paragraph,2. Aerial surveillance,” the Custodian has advised that no other vendor, aside from PSS, has provided the described services.

5: All emails between police department email accounts and users on the domains "pss-1.com" or "vigilantsolutions.com". (One example would be brian.schockley@vigilantsolutions.com<mailto:brian.schockley@vigilantsolutions.com>. Users on the domain would be in the form of XXXXXXXXX@vigilantsolutions.com<mailto:XXXXXXXXX@vigilantsolutions.com>).

RESPONSE:

The Custodian for the Information Technology Section of the BPD has searched BPD’s email system for all Email communications using the domains listed above.

The Office of Legal Affairs is in the process of reviewing the records provided by the Custodian.

To this end, review of the records, for disclosure in whole or part, has not been accomplished by the date of this letter. Once all responsive records have been reviewed, all disclosable records will be forwarded to your attention under this request.

6: All paper-based communications between your department and Persistent Surveillance Systems, and between your department and Vigilant Solutions. In asking for all paper and electronic correspondence, this request necessarily includes marketing materials and descriptions of product capabilities for any device, software, or access/capability this department has purchased. A circuit court judge in Illinois recently ruled that non-disclosure agreements signed by public bodies do not trump freedom of information laws when it comes to surveillance equipment/capability purchased by police. Citation:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/chicago-police-must-finally-produce-stingray-records-judge-orders/

RESPONSE:

The Custodian(s) for the Homeland Security Division and WatchCenter Divisions of BPD have searched and provided records to this Office for review.

The Office of Legal Affairs is in the process of reviewing the records provided by the Custodians.

To this end, review of the records for disclosure in whole or part, has not been accomplished by the date of this letter. Once all responsive records have been reviewed, all disclosable records will be forwarded to your attention under this request.

7: Documents sufficient to show all rules or regulations governing the use of products (hardware or software) that do 1. license plate scanning or reading or automatic photographing; 2. aerial surveillance, excluding monitoring roadways for speed infractions.

RESPONSE:

Please see enclosed records provided by the Custodian for the Written Directives Unit pertaining to: Documents sufficient to show all rules or regulations governing the use of products (hardware or software) that do 1. license plate scanning or reading or automatic photographing. See attached three (3) records labeled “Responsive Records – Request 7(a)(b)”.

For your request pertaining to: “Documents sufficient to show all rules or regulations governing the use of products (hardware or software) that do 2. aerial surveillance, excluding monitoring roadways for speed infractions.” The Custodian has advised that it is not in possession of any records responsive to this request.

8: The text of all agreements (whether formal, email, memo, or otherwise) between your department and any other public body or department that allows your department to use or access the capabilities of 1. license plate scanning or reading or automatic photographing; 2. aerial surveillance, excluding monitoring roadways for speed infractions.

RESPONSE:

The Custodian has advised that it is not in possession of any records responsive to this request.

9: Documents sufficient to show the month and year your department first entered a program of scanning license plates or accessing a database of scanned plates, if it indeed has such a program (and end date of said program if it has ended).

RESPONSE:

Please see records produced labeled “Responsive Records – Request 7(a)(b)” as responsive to this request.

10: Documents sufficient to show the total number of license plates scanned in your department's jurisdiction (whether the jurisdiction in this case is precisely or roughly represented) since the department began its plate-scanning program or first purchased access to such a program.

RESPONSE:

The BPD is not the Custodian of the records requested. BPD refers you to the Maryland Coordination and Analysis Center, as the Governmental Unit that may be in possession of records responsive to this request.

11: Documents sufficient to show the month and year your department first entered a program of persistent aerial surveillance, if it indeed has such a program (and end date of said program if it has ended).

RESPONSE:

The Custodian(s) for the Homeland Security Division and WatchCenter Divisions of BPD have searched and provided records to this Office for review.

The Office of Legal Affairs is in the process of reviewing the records provided by the Custodian.

To this end, review of the records for disclosure in whole or part, has not been accomplished by the date of this letter. Once all responsive records have been reviewed, all disclosable records will be forwarded to your attention under this request.

12: Documents sufficient to show the number of plane-hours of aerial surveillance (excluding monitoring roadways for speed infractions) purchased by your department within the dates at the top of this request. For example, one plane flying for four hours is four plane-hours. Two planes flying for four hours is eight plane-hours.

RESPONSE:

The Custodian(s) for the Homeland Security Division and WatchCenter Divisions of BPD have searched and provided records to this Office for review.

The Office of Legal Affairs is in the process of reviewing the records provided by the Custodian.

To this end, review of the records for disclosure in whole or part, has not been accomplished by the date of this letter. Once all responsive records have been reviewed, all disclosable records will be forwarded to your attention under this request.

13: Documents sufficient to show any attempt made by a representative of your department to inform the public about automatic license plate readers or persistent aerial surveillance. This could include but is not limited to records of town hall meetings, quotes from police spokespeople in local media, or text from the department's website.
RESPONSE:
BPD will advise that pertaining to this request for: “Documents sufficient to show any attempt made by a representative of your department to inform the public about automatic license plate readers.” BPD refers you to the enclosed General Orders and Policies on the topic of License Plate Readers, labeled “Responsive Records – Request 7(a)” which has been published and publicly available since at least August of 2011.

The Custodian has advised that pertaining to your request for: Documents sufficient to show any attempt made by a representative of your department to inform the public about persistent aerial surveillance, there are no records responsive to this request.

Nothing in this response is intended to indicate that any records sought from the BPD exist or to waive any privileges held by the BPD. You may contest this response by filing a complaint for Judicial Review in Circuit Court pursuant to MPIA Section 4-362.

Sincerely,

Brent Schubert
Assistant City Solicitor
Legal Affairs Division
Baltimore Police Department
100 N. Holliday Street, Room 101
Baltimore, Maryland 21202

From: DCU

September 28, 2016

MuckRock
Dept MR 27384
411A Highland Ave
Somerville, MA 02144-2516

Re: Maryland Public Information Request

In your correspondence on or about August 1, 2016, you submitted a request for records to the Baltimore Police Department (“BPD”) wherein you made Thirteen (13) separate requests for government records. The Maryland Public Information Act (“MPIA”), Annotated Code of Maryland, General Provisions Article, § 4-101, et seq. governs your request.

This correspondence is sent in follow up to BPD’s Communication sent on September 15, 2016, and specifically provides records found to be responsive to your request numbers: (3); (4); (8).

1: The full documentation of all contracts or non-disclosure agreements (enacted OR IN EFFECT between the above dates) with the companies "Persistent Surveillance Systems" or "Vigilant Solutions".

RESPONSE:

Response provided in BPD’s 09/15/2016 correspondence.

2: Copies of all invoices to or from these companies, and documents sufficient to show any and all disbursement of public funds to either company

RESPONSE:

The Custodian WatchCenter Division of BPD has searched and provided records to this Office for review.

The Office of Legal Affairs is in the process of reviewing the records provided by the Custodian.

To this end, review of the records for disclosure in whole or part, has not been accomplished by the date of this letter. Once all responsive records have been reviewed, all disclosable records will be forwarded to your attention under this request.

Additionally, Per the Custodian, there were no public funds used or dispersed in association with the PSS pilot program. All funding came from private donations in the form of gifts.

Additionally, the Custodian has advised BPD has no contract or any business relationship with Company: Vigilant Solutions, and therefore is not in possession of any invoices from said Company.

3: The full documentation of all contracts (enacted OR IN EFFECT between the above dates) with any company other than the two cited above, in which said company provides your department with equipment or services (including software) for 1. license plate scanning or reading or automatic photographing; 2. aerial surveillance, excluding monitoring roadways for speed infractions.

RESPONSE:

In follow up to BPD’s September 15, 2016 Correspondence: Please find attached records provided by the Custodians of BPD’s Fiscal Section, provided as responsive to the above request. See attached “Responsive Record – Request 3…”

4: Copies of all invoices to or from any company that fits the description in the prior paragraph, and documents sufficient to show any disbursement of public funds to any company that fits this description.

RESPONSE:

In follow up to BPD’s September 15, 2016 Correspondence: Please find attached records provided by the Custodians of BPD’s Fiscal Section, provided as responsive to the above request. See attached “Responsive Record – Request 4…”

5: All emails between police department email accounts and users on the domains "pss-1.com" or "vigilantsolutions.com". (One example would be brian.schockley@vigilantsolutions.com<mailto:brian.schockley@vigilantsolutions.com>. Users on the domain would be in the form of XXXXXXXXX@vigilantsolutions.com<mailto:XXXXXXXXX@vigilantsolutions.com>).

RESPONSE:

The Custodian for the Information Technology Section of the BPD has searched BPD’s email system for all Email communications using the domains listed above.

The Office of Legal Affairs is in the process of reviewing the records provided by the Custodian.

To this end, review of the records, for disclosure in whole or part, has not been accomplished by the date of this letter. Once all responsive records have been reviewed, all disclosable records will be forwarded to your attention under this request.

6: All paper-based communications between your department and Persistent Surveillance Systems, and between your department and Vigilant Solutions. In asking for all paper and electronic correspondence, this request necessarily includes marketing materials and descriptions of product capabilities for any device, software, or access/capability this department has purchased. A circuit court judge in Illinois recently ruled that non-disclosure agreements signed by public bodies do not trump freedom of information laws when it comes to surveillance equipment/capability purchased by police. Citation:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/chicago-police-must-finally-produce-stingray-records-judge-orders/

RESPONSE:

The Custodian(s) for the Homeland Security Division and WatchCenter Divisions of BPD have searched and provided records to this Office for review.

The Office of Legal Affairs is in the process of reviewing the records provided by the Custodians.

To this end, review of the records for disclosure in whole or part, has not been accomplished by the date of this letter. Once all responsive records have been reviewed, all disclosable records will be forwarded to your attention under this request.

7: Documents sufficient to show all rules or regulations governing the use of products (hardware or software) that do 1. license plate scanning or reading or automatic photographing; 2. aerial surveillance, excluding monitoring roadways for speed infractions.

RESPONSE:

Responsive Records provided on 09/15/2016

8: The text of all agreements (whether formal, email, memo, or otherwise) between your department and any other public body or department that allows your department to use or access the capabilities of 1. license plate scanning or reading or automatic photographing; 2. aerial surveillance, excluding monitoring roadways for speed infractions.

RESPONSE:

Please see attached record provided to supplement BPD’s 09/15/2016 response. See Document attached labeled “Responsive Record – Request 8”.

9: Documents sufficient to show the month and year your department first entered a program of scanning license plates or accessing a database of scanned plates, if it indeed has such a program (and end date of said program if it has ended).

RESPONSE:

Responsive records provided in BPD’s 09/15/2016 correspondence.

10: Documents sufficient to show the total number of license plates scanned in your department's jurisdiction (whether the jurisdiction in this case is precisely or roughly represented) since the department began its plate-scanning program or first purchased access to such a program.

RESPONSE:

The BPD is not the Custodian of the records requested. BPD refers you to the Maryland Coordination and Analysis Center, as the Governmental Unit that may be in possession of records responsive to this request.

11: Documents sufficient to show the month and year your department first entered a program of persistent aerial surveillance, if it indeed has such a program (and end date of said program if it has ended).

RESPONSE:

The Custodian(s) for the Homeland Security Division and WatchCenter Divisions of BPD have searched and provided records to this Office for review.

The Office of Legal Affairs is in the process of reviewing the records provided by the Custodian.

To this end, review of the records for disclosure in whole or part, has not been accomplished by the date of this letter. Once all responsive records have been reviewed, all disclosable records will be forwarded to your attention under this request.

12: Documents sufficient to show the number of plane-hours of aerial surveillance (excluding monitoring roadways for speed infractions) purchased by your department within the dates at the top of this request. For example, one plane flying for four hours is four plane-hours. Two planes flying for four hours is eight plane-hours.

RESPONSE:

The Custodian(s) for the Homeland Security Division and WatchCenter Divisions of BPD have searched and provided records to this Office for review.

The Office of Legal Affairs is in the process of reviewing the records provided by the Custodian.

To this end, review of the records for disclosure in whole or part, has not been accomplished by the date of this letter. Once all responsive records have been reviewed, all disclosable records will be forwarded to your attention under this request.

13: Documents sufficient to show any attempt made by a representative of your department to inform the public about automatic license plate readers or persistent aerial surveillance. This could include but is not limited to records of town hall meetings, quotes from police spokespeople in local media, or text from the department's website.
RESPONSE:

Response and responsive records provided on 09/15/2016.

Nothing in this response is intended to indicate that any records sought from the BPD exist or to waive any privileges held by the BPD. You may contest this response by filing a complaint for Judicial Review in Circuit Court pursuant to MPIA Section 4-362.

Sincerely,

Brent Schubert
Assistant City Solicitor
Legal Affairs Division
Baltimore Police Department
100 N. Holliday Street, Room 101
Baltimore, Maryland 21202

From: Baltimore Police Department

A copy of documents responsive to the request.

From: DCU

Re: Maryland Public Information Request
BPD & PSS-CSP Pilot Program

Dear Requester:

You submitted a request for records to the Baltimore Police Department (“BPD”) relating to the pilot program between BPD and company Persistent Surveillance Systems (“PSS”) concerning technology known as Wide Area Aerial Surveillance.

The Maryland Public Information Act (“PIA”), MD Code, General Provisions Article (“GP”), sections 4-101, et seq. governs your request.

This response is meant to close out your open requests and specifically address your open requests below numbered: 2; 5; 6; 11; 12.

The BPD has completed its review of all the responsive records. The BPD has spent no less than Twenty (20) hours combined staff time in its review and preparation of the responsive records. The BPD has waived all costs associated with the search, review and preparation of the responsive documents.

The following link will allow you to download the responsive records:https://www.dropbox.com/sh/unhd0ezo789yuuj/AAD-fkP92n-LjkaJ9he6qs3pa?dl=0

Any further materials produced by BPD in association with the pilot program, will be shared via uploading to the above link.

Withheld and redacted from these records is information pertaining to open and ongoing law enforcement investigations and information considered “intelligence information”. Pursuant to GP §4-343, BPD’s position is that release of law enforcement information that is currently part of an open and pending criminal investigation would be contrary to the public interest. See City of Frederick v. Randall Family, LLC, 154 Md. App. 543, 562-567 (2004). In further support of the decision to not disclose the records above, GP §4-351(a)(1)(3) provides the custodian with discretion to deny records of an open and pending criminal investigation and material considered “intelligence information”. SeeGP §4-351 (“(a) Subject to subsection (b) of this section, a custodian may deny inspection of: (1) records of investigations conducted by the Attorney General, a State’s Attorney, a municipal or county attorney, a police department, or a sheriff. (3) records that contain intelligence information…of a police department.”).

The materials withheld and/or redacted relate to incidents occurring on or about the following dates:

-January 22, 2016 – Shooting
-February 16, 2016 – Shooting
-February 27, 2016 – Shooting
-February 29, 2016 – Cutting
-June 26, 2016 – Assault
-June 25, 2016 – Shooting
-June 26, 2016 – Intelligence Report
-July 11, 2016 – Homicide
-July 19, 2016 – Homicide
-August 18, 2016 – Shooting

Additionally redacted from these records is material that if disclosed may jeopardize the security of BPD’s information systems. See GP § 4-338 (A Custodian shall deny inspection of the part of a public record that contains information about the security of an information system).

Finally, the personal cell phone numbers of BPD personnel and those working with BPD under the pilot program have been redacted from these records. See GP §4-331 (A custodian shall deny inspection of the part of a public record that contains the home address or telephone number of an employee of a unit or an instrumentality of the State or of a political subdivision).

Nothing in this response is intended to indicate that any records sought from the BPD exist or to waive any privileges held by the BPD. You may contest this response by filing a complaint for Judicial Review in Circuit Court pursuant to GP § 4-362.

Sincerely

Brent D. Schubert
Assistant City Solicitor
Legal Affairs Division

Files

pages

Close