Skip to main content

Opinion

Opinion By: Jack Conway, Attorney General; Amye L. Bensenhaver, Assistant Attorney General

Open Records Decision

The question presented in this appeal is whether the Office of the Spencer County Sheriff violated the Open Records Act in denying Lawrence Trageser's April 2, 2013, request for records "reflecting the names of any and all individuals, from that point in time starting from January 1, 2011, 12:01 a.m. to [the] current date, who have been deputized by Donald Stump." We find that the Sheriff violated the Act by treating Mr. Trageser's request as a request for records reflecting the names of individuals who administered the oath of office to his deputies and thereafter withholding responsive records.

In his response, Spencer County Sheriff Buddy Stump advised Mr. Trageser that "[t]here are no records or documents that reflect the names of individuals that have been deputized by Donald Stump . . . ." Mr. Trageser later appealed the Sheriff's denial, disputing the Sheriff's denial of his request and asserting that "[t]he sheriff is the one official responsible for selecting and/or approving a deputy under his organizational control." Mr. Trageser provided records obtained by other means that are responsive to his request, including "an oath of duty" identifying the deputies by name, and an invoice "for the cost of producing identification cards for deputies . . . under Sheriff Stump's command."

In supplemental correspondence directed to this office, the Sheriff argued that he "does not deputize anyone." Rather, he maintained, "the oath of office is administered by either a District Court Judge or a Circuit Court Judge . . ." The Sheriff acknowledged that he "is the one responsible for selecting and/or approving a deputy under his control," as well as Mr. Trageser's right of access to records identifying "the names of individuals [he] approved for hire," but asserted that he "did not deputize anyone." On appeal, Mr. Trageser focuses on the ordinary meaning of the term "deputize, " asserting that to deputize means "to appoint as deputy" or to "nam[e] or select[] for an office, position" and not "to [administer] an oath of office or to be sworn in." We agree.

In 13-ORD-029, this office rejected the Spencer County Judge/Executive's denial of Mr. Trageser's request for "any records reflecting a letter sent to Kentucky State Police Commissioner Rodney Brewer" based on the Judge's assertion that he had "no notes, no rough drafts, no memos and so forth" reflecting the letter. The Judge acknowledged that he had the letter, but maintained that Mr. Trageser "failed to ask for that." Adopting the Kentucky Supreme Court's reasoning in Commonwealth v. Chestnut, 250 S.W.3d 655 (Ky. 2008), we held that "Mr. Trageser's request was adequate to enable the Judge to identify and locate a potentially responsive public record," namely, the Judge's letter to Commissioner Brewer. 13-ORD-029, p. 3. We declared his failure to produce the record a violation of the Open Records Act. A copy of 13-ORD-029 is attached and its reasoning adopted in full.

Mr. Trageser submitted a brief and simple request for the Spencer County Sheriff to make full disclosure of records identifying all person's deputized by Sheriff Stump or openly assert its reasons for nondisclosure. See Chestnut at 662, citing Providence Journal Co. v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 460 F.Supp. 778, 792 (D.R.I. 1978) reversed on other grounds on appeal , 602 F.2d 1010 (1st Cir. 1979). He did not request records documenting the administration of the oath of office to the deputies or identifying the person(s) who administered the oath. Consistent with the analysis set forth in Chestnut , above, as applied in 13-ORD-029, the Sheriff violated the Open Records Act, specifically KRS 61.872(2) and KRS 61.880(1), in denying Mr. Trageser' request.

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:

Lawrence TrageserDonald "Buddy" StumpRuth Hollan

LLM Summary
The decision finds that the Spencer County Sheriff violated the Open Records Act by incorrectly interpreting Lawrence Trageser's request for records of individuals deputized by Sheriff Donald Stump as a request for records of individuals who administered the oath of office to deputies. The decision adopts the reasoning from a previous decision (13-ORD-029) which held that a request was adequate to identify a responsive public record, applying this precedent to find that the Sheriff's failure to provide the requested records was a violation of the law.
Disclaimer:
The Sunshine Law Library is not exhaustive and may contain errors from source documents or the import process. Nothing on this website should be taken as legal advice. It is always best to consult with primary sources and appropriate counsel before taking any action.
Requested By:
Lawrence Trageser
Agency:
Office of the Spencer County Sheriff
Type:
Open Records Decision
Lexis Citation:
2013 Ky. AG LEXIS 166
Cites:
Neighbors

Support Our Work

The Coalition needs your help in safeguarding Kentuckian's right to know about their government.