Request By:
Mr. Theodore Berry
Berry, Oakley & Anderson
107 Church Street
Lexington, Kentucky 40507
Opinion
Opinion By: Robert F. Stephens, Attorney General; By: Carl Miller, Assistant Attorney General
You have requested an opinion of the Attorney General as to whether the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government properly denied inspection of a document by your client, Mr. Malcolm Irvin. The record in question contains a statement made by Mr. Irvin to the Division of Police concerning alleged incidents of sexual abuse at the Kincaid Home. We do not have information as to whether the statement was made in writing by Mr. Irvin or was made orally and recorded by the Division of Police. We do not believe, however, that whether the statement was made orally or in writing makes any difference in the question before us.
We assume that Mr. Irvin has some recollection of the statement he gave and wants to see the exact statement in the possession of the Division of Police. Corporate Counsel, Susan W. Wanat, has denied Mr. Irvin's request by letter dated August 9, 1977, stating that the reason for the denial is KRS 61.878(1)(f). Said statute exempts from public inspection records of law enforcement agencies or agencies involved in administrative adjudication they were compiling in the process of detecting or investigating statutory or regulatory violations. The exemption continues so long as enforcement action has not been completed or a decision has been made to take no action.
Mr. Irvin claims the right to inspect the statement he made to the police under KRS 61.884 which reads as follows:
"Any person shall have access, to any public record relating to him or in which he is mentioned by name, upon presentation of appropriate identification, subject to the provisions of KRS 61.878."
It is the opinion of the Attorney General that the requested record is exempted from public inspection by KRS 61.878(1)(f) as Ms. Wanat stated. The fact that the record contains the requester's statement and he has a general knowledge of its content does not alter our opinion. As long as the investigation is in progress and the decision on enforcement is pending we believe that the record is not subject to public inspection and not subject to inspection by Mr. Irvin specifically.