Opinion
Opinion By: Jack Conway, Attorney General; Michelle D. Harrison, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
At issue in this appeal is whether the Administrative Office of the Courts violated the Kentucky Open Records Act in failing to issue a timely written response upon receipt of Jeffrey Carpenter's November 29, 2011, request for a "[c]opy of all centralized criminal history records and information relating to myself - including all CourtNet information and prison Resident Record Card information." In response to Mr. Carpenter's appeal, AOC legal counsel Justin Capps correctly observed that "records of the AOC are not subject to statutory regulations such as the Open Records Act (KRS Chapter 61)," citing KRS 26A.200 (records which are made by, generated for, or received by any agency of the Court of Justice are the property thereof and subject to control of the Supreme Court) and Ex Parte Farley, 570 S.W.2d 617 (Ky. 1978) in support of the agency's position. It is the decision of this office that the reasoning contained in 02-ORD-24 is dispositive of the question presented; a copy of that decision is attached hereto and incorporated by reference.
Based upon the authorities referenced in that decision, specifically KRS 26A.200, 26A.220, and Ex Parte Farley, above, this office finds that AOC is not bound by, and therefore cannot be said to have violated the provisions of the Open Records Act. Although this office has encouraged AOC to consider that "policies of openness evinced by the Open Records Act should . . . be accepted as a matter of comity, " 04-ORD-037, p. 6, relative to "records of the courts and judicial agencies that are of a non-deliberative nature," ultimately the decision of whether to release such documentation "rests with AOC and the courts per the referenced legal authorities." 05-ORD-266, p. 1. Simply put, "disputes relating to access to court records, including records of the Administrative Office of the Courts, must be resolved by the Court." 02-ORD-24, p. 4.
That said, AOC acknowledged on appeal that "the Kentucky Supreme Court has also opined that there is very little" in the Open Records Act that it "cannot accept as a matter of comity. " Thus, AOC "endeavors to comply with the spirit of the Open Records Act whenever possible." AOC "would have been happy to provide Mr. Carpenter with a criminal record report, which consists of information derived from CourtNet," AOC explained, upon receipt of the applicable request form and fee; however, AOC has no record of having received any request from Mr. Carpenter. Even if AOC was bound by the Open Records Act, a factual dispute of this nature could not be resolved in this forum. In any event, AOC advised Mr. Carpenter of the procedure to follow if he still wishes to receive a copy of his "criminal record report," enclosed a copy of the request form, directed him to its website for additional information, and referred him to the Department of Corrections for his "prison Resident Record Card information" per KRS 61.872(4). Nothing else is required.
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating action in the appropriate circuit court pursuant to KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882. Pursuant to KRS 61.880(3), the Attorney General should be notified of any action in circuit court, but should not be named as a party in that action or in any subsequent proceeding.
Distributed to:
Jeffrey Carpenter, # 95017Marc TheiraultJustin Capps