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 Lincoln County Sheriff violated the Open Records Act in the disposition of attorney Chris Wiest's August 17, 2015, request for various records in connection with the arrest of Krystal Freeman. For the reasons that follow, we find that the Sheriff violated the Act.
Mr. Wiest's August 17 letter to the sheriff's office requested copies of the following:
(1) Copies of any 911, or other calls to or from the Lincoln County Sheriff's Office, including with Deputy Kirkpatrick, or any other personnel, that involved in any way Krystal Freeman, or her arrest, and would have been expected to have occurred on or about July 26, 2015, or in the days that followed; [footnote omitted]
(2) Copies of any video or audio recordings or photographs, including officer "dash" or body cameras, or camera recordings at any booking centers, that in any way relate to Krystal Freeman, or her arrest, and would have been expected to have occurred on or about July 26, 2015, or in the days that followed;
(3) Copies of any reports, notes, statements, jottings, or any other public record, as that term is broadly defined in K.R.S. Chapter 61, that in any way relates to Krystal Freeman, or her arrest, and would have been expected to have occurred on or about July 26, 2015, or in the days that followed;
(4) Copies of the complete personnel file of Deputy Kirkpatrick, including, without limitation, any and all complaints, any internal affairs investigations relating to Deputy Kirkpatrick, copies of training (including training on determinations of probable cause) , or any other matters;
(5) Copies of any departmental policies or procedures relating to arrests and determinations or [ sic ] probable cause, in force from January 1, 2015, to the present;
(6) Copies of any and all records relating to a certain domestic violence complaint filed by Lauralee Yocom against Gary Yocum [ sic ], in the Laurel District Court, Case No. 15-D-00042-001.
Mr. Wiest's appeal was received in this office on September 17, 2015. He advised that he had received no response to his request. The sheriff and the Lincoln County Attorney were officially notified of this appeal on September 17, 2015, with instructions that any response to the appeal must be received no later than Wednesday, September 23, 2015. No response or other communication was received by this office.
On October 12, 2015, Mr. Wiest advised this office that he had likewise received no written response to this appeal on behalf of the Lincoln County Sheriff. At some point after the filing of this appeal, however, Mr. Wiest received some records, responsive to some portions of his request, by facsimile from the sheriff's office. Obviously, no audio or video recordings could have been included in this transmission. Mr. Wiest advised that there was no cover letter explaining whether any records had been withheld, or whether any further responsive records existed.
By failing to make a written response to an open records request within three business days, the sheriff violated KRS 61.880(1). Furthermore, the sheriff failed to state whether any records were withheld, or the basis for doing so, in further violation of KRS 61.880(1): "Each public agency ? shall determine within three (3) days, excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, after the receipt of any such request whether to comply with the request and shall notify in writing the person making the request, within the three (3) day period, of its decision. An agency response denying, in whole or in part, inspection of any record shall include a statement of the specific exception authorizing the withholding of the record and a brief explanation of how the exception applies to the record withheld. "
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 proceedings.