HOULTON, Maine — The town of Houlton must release within 15 days police documents, audio files and body camera footage related to a police interaction with a minor child, according to court documents.
On Monday, Superior Court Justice Patrick Larson ordered the Houlton Police Department to furnish the court with the incident report, body camera footage related to the June 6 incident, and audio recordings of the dispatch call and the officer’s arrival on scene.
Earlier this summer, Mark Lipscombe of Houlton — who is the father of the child — requested public documents from police and town officials related to the police interaction.
After what Lipscombe called two months of stonewalling and cherry-picked document production, he filed a petition for judicial review in August under Maine’s Rule 80B, as a way to challenge the town’s inaction related to his Freedom of Access Act requests.
In the recent court order, Larson asked the town to also file, under seal, unredacted copies of the material in its possession from the June 6 incident for the court’s private review.
Lipscombe’s complaint comes amid an abundance of Freedom of Access Act requests from locals and the Bangor Daily News related to police matters and a townwide facial recognition surveillance system in Houlton.
The town’s alleged sluggish response to requests for access to public documents follows a national trend of government secrecy and reluctance to release public documents, according to a recent study by the Brechner Center for the Advancement of the First Amendment at the University of Florida.
Last month, the town manager admitted that the FOAA requests and resultant lawsuits are costing the town money. They are the overarching reason that the town’s 2025 legal budget required a $40,000 infusion from the undesignated fund balance.
Nonetheless, Lipscombe and others argue that residents are fighting what they view as the town’s lack of transparency. The town’s increasing legal costs stem from officials’ failure to respond to public document requests as well as a decision to hire expensive Portland attorneys, Lipscombe said during a Town Council meeting in August.
In his initial filing, Lipscombe was seeking access to all investigative records related to the interaction. After nearly two months of what he characterized as missed deadlines, shifting justifications and deficient document production, he accused the town and police of improperly withholding records concerning his child’s interaction.
In support of his FOAA appeal, Lipscombe said that the town failed to conduct an adequate search for records, and that its claim that body camera footage cannot be released — because it lacks the means to redact it — does not excuse it.
“The HPDs pattern of delays, missed deadlines and secrecy suggest they are more interested in avoiding scrutiny than serving the public,” Lipscombe said. “When law enforcement claims they can’t redact body camera footage in 2025, it’s either incompetence or willful obstruction of transparency.”
The town contends it provided all the requested documents it is legally able to release. It has filed a motion to dismiss.
Last week, Lipscombe appealed the motion to dismiss.
In his most recent filing, he asked the court to conduct an in-camera review to determine which redactions, if any, were properly applied.
Once Larson reviews the unredacted documents, audio and video files, the court will issue a scheduling order regarding further proceedings in this matter, the justice said, adding that the materials will remain under seal until further order of the court.
