Opinion
Opinion By: Jack Conway, Attorney General; Amye L. Bensenhaver, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
This matter having been presented to the Attorney General in an open records appeal, and the Attorney General being sufficiently advised, we find that the Kentucky State Police properly relied on KRS 17.175(4), 1 incorporated into the Open Records Act by KRS 61.878(1)(l), in denying Racquel Hatfield's February 7, 2014, request for a copy of "all laboratory reports, all underlying data, and any accompanying documentation . . . generated in connection with Laboratory # 07-C-09680 . . ." relating to Johnny Phillips. Mr. Phillips was convicted of murder in the Laurel Circuit Court in September 2009 and the requested records related to DNA testing and analysis. Resolution of the open records issue presented turns on the application of the referenced confidentiality provision, as interpreted in 03-ORD-126, to that testing and analysis.
In 03-ORD-126, the Attorney General affirmed KSP's denial of a request for DNA laboratory reports on the basis of KRS 17.175(4). At page 5 of that decision, we recognized that "[i]n enacting KRS 17.170 and 17.175, the General Assembly determined that [the purpose underlying its enactment] could best be served by establishing a broadly worded confidentiality provision in the law that extends to any 'records produced from samples' received from the Department of Corrections in compliance with KRS 17.170 and 17.175, and samples from other sources, and prohibiting disclosure of those records for any purpose other than 'law enforcement purposes.'" A copy of 03-ORD-126 is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. By its express terms, KRS 17.175(4) establishes that DNA records "are not public records but shall be confidential and . . . exempt from the provisions of KRS 61.870 to 61.884."
In the same open records decision, the Attorney General gave deference to "the judicial rules of practice and procedure that apply to [criminal] cases," but determined that for purposes of open records analysis, the requester "st[ood] in the same shoes as any other open records requester, " though she represented the subject of the DNA testing and analysis in the appeal of his criminal conviction. 03-ORD-126, p. 6. Consistent with this line of reasoning, and notwithstanding the existence of a court order directing the prosecution to provide Mr. Phillips with a copy of the DNA reports, 2 we find that Ms. Hatfield is invested with no greater right of access to the laboratory reports than any other open records requester. We therefore affirm KSP's denial of her request. Accord, 05-ORD-251.
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:
Racquel HatfieldEmily M. Perkins
Footnotes
Footnotes
1 KRS 17.175(4) provides:
DNA identification records produced from the samples are not public records but shall be confidential and used only for law enforcement purposes. DNA identification records shall be exempt from the provisions of KRS 61.870 to 61.884.
2 Any dispute concerning enforcement of the court's order should be addressed to, and resolved by, the court.