Request By:
Major Bobby Stallins
Official Custodian of Records
Kentucky State Police
919 Versailles Road
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
Opinion
Opinion By: David L. Armstrong, Attorney General; Thomas R. Emerson, Assistant Attorney General
Jack W. Steiner, Jr., Esq. has appealed to the Attorney General pursuant to KRS 61.880 your denial of his request to inspect certain public records in your custody. He had requested a copy of the State Police investigation file concerning a complaint made by Martha Ruth Brown.
In your letter to Mr. Steiner, dated September 12, 1985, you stated that the portions of the file which were not provided to him fall under the exclusions to public inspection set forth in KRS 61.878(1)(a) and (h). The portions of the file excluded consist of either "public records containing information of a personal nature where the public disclosure thereof would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" or "preliminary recommendations and preliminary memoranda in which opinions are expressed."
The undersigned Assistant Attorney General talked with you by telephone on October 11, 1985 and you said that the items or documents in the file which were not available for public inspection were all the same class or type. They consisted of interviews with the co-workers of Martha Ruth Brown wherein those co-workers expressed their personal opinions on various matters.
Opinion of the Attorney General
It is the opinion of the Attorney General that you acted in conformity with the Open Records Law, KRS 61.870 to KRS 61.884, in denying access to those records in the police investigative file consisting of interviews with the person's co-workers where those co-workers expressed their personal opinions on a variety of matters.
KRS 61.878(1)(a), (g) and (h) exclude the following public records from public inspection in the absence of a court order authorizing inspection:
"(a) Public records containing information of a personal nature where the public disclosure thereof would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
"(g) Preliminary drafts, notes, correspondence with private individuals, other than correspondence which is intended to give notice of final action of a public agency;
"(h) Preliminary recommendations, and preliminary memoranda in which opinions are expressed or policies formulated or recommended;"
In OAG 83-286, copy enclosed, we dealt with a request to inspect certain incident reports, daily log sheets and evaluative memoranda concerning Residential Services of the Ashland, Hopkinsville and Bowling Green Group Homes, the Lincoln Village Treatment Center and the Green River Boys' Camp. This Office concluded in part that the denial of inspection relative to such material was proper in part under KRS 61.878(1)(a). That opinion said in part that memoranda of an evaluative nature have been consistently exempted from public inspection as a protection against an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The privacy right protects both the subject of and the creator of the document. In connection with the privacy exemption see also OAG 85-83 and OAG 85-69, copies of which are enclosed, particularly the latter opinion, dealing in part with the limitations upon a person's right to inspect public records relating to him or in which he is mentioned by name.
This Office concluded in OAG 82-532, copy enclosed, that records consisting of an abstract of interviews conducted with law enforcement authorities in another state pertaining to a particular person (a compilation of unsubstantiated opinions obtained from persons in another state relative to a person suspected of criminal activity) were properly excluded from public inspection under KRS 61.878(1)(h). In addition, this Office concluded in OAG 84-249, copy enclosed, that witness statements which did not serve as the complaints which spawned an investigation were preliminary documents in police investigative files and properly excluded from public inspection pursuant to the provisions of KRS 61.878(1)(g) and (h).
Thus, it is the opinion of the Attorney General that your denial of the request to inspect and copy those records in the police investigative file, consisting of interviews with a person's co-workers where those co-workers expressed their personal opinions on a variety of matters, was proper as such material is properly excluded from public inspection pursuant to KRS 61.878(1)(a), (g) and (h).
As required by statute, a copy of this opinion is being sent to the requesting party, Jack W. Steiner, Jr., Esq., who has the right to challenge it in circuit court pursuant to KRS 61.880(5) .