Subcommittee hears explanation of claim process and police vehicle, evidence and camera policies

The Lowell City Public Safety Subcommittee on June 16, 2026 took up a petition asking for general information about procedures after a police-involved crash and broader public-safety practices in dense urban and campus areas.

City Solicitor William explained the municipal claim process, referencing the municipal-liability statute commonly known as Chapter 258. He said a presentment letter (initial claim) is filed with the city's executive officer, which triggers a six-month period for the city to respond; if claimants want to pursue court action they generally must file within three years. "In Superior Court, there is a cap of a $100,000 liability against the city," William said, and he noted that liability depends on whether an employee was acting within the scope of employment.

The subcommittee then heard from Chief Hudon about emergency-vehicle operations and internal review. "Any operation of emergency vehicles in Massachusetts is governed by Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 89, —7B, as well as the Lowell Police Department policies on emergency vehicles," the chief said, explaining that officers are trained in emergency-vehicle operations and exercise discretion about lights and sirens depending on circumstances.

Chief Hudon described the department's post-crash review process: supervisors respond to collisions involving police vehicles, traffic specialists and the traffic unit review reconstruction as needed, and administrative-level supervisors review findings. He said serious bodily-injury or fatal cases usually fall under the district attorney's office and often involve state police for independent reconstruction.

Councilor Scott raised a critique that internal review could look like "policing yourself," and noted insurers provide an external check when they dispute internal findings. Chief Hudon acknowledged the perception and reiterated that severe cases are subject to independent review by state authorities.

The subcommittee also discussed evidence collection and body-worn cameras. Chief Hudon said evidence protocols vary by crime type (violent scenes are secured, photographed, documented and collected) and that body-worn camera footage can be part of evidence packets shared with prosecutors and defense counsel. He noted a prior grant had paid for camera subscriptions but that the grant has ended; the council was expected to approve a fund transfer that evening to sustain the program. The chief added that newer body-camera systems may auto-activate with lights and sirens, and officers are required to activate cameras on dispatched calls and when situations become adversarial.

The subcommittee took no formal vote on policy changes at the meeting. It concluded with a motion to adjourn.