Opinion
Opinion By: Andy Beshear,Attorney General;James M. Herrick,Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision The question presented in this appeal is whether the Kentucky State Police ("KSP") violated the Kentucky Open Records Act by denying Tracy Shipley's November 21, 2017, request for all records relating to her concealed weapons ("CCDW") permit, including her initial application and renewals. For the reasons that follow, we find that KSP's denial did not violate the Act.
Ms. Shipley's November 21 letter to KSP recounted that she had requested these records in person on October 2, 2017, after losing her copies of the initial application paperwork due to theft. Her written request stated:
Pursuant to KRS § 61.884 and the Kentucky Open Records Act, I am requesting access to any and all records or documents maintained on me by Kentucky State Police. I also request the records retention period of any and all records or documents related to me maintained by Kentucky State Police under any applicable laws. 1 I also request a list of any other entities requesting this information. . . . I am also making this request pursuant to FOIA which mandates this information be maintained pursuant to federal law. 2 I also request any records related to any searches performed related to me in any index or database accessible to KSP, as well as information on any records requested or provided to any external agency, entity or individual.
If any additional records or documents exist related to me and are no [ sic ] so named, I formally request copies of these records or documents.
In the context in which this appeal is presented, we interpret this request as seeking all records related in any way to Ms. Shipley's CCDW permit application, issuance, and renewal process. 3
On November 30, 2017, KSP records custodian Stephanie A. Dawson responded:
The information you requested is confidential and can only be made available to law enforcement agencies, pursuant to KRS 237.110(10), which states that:
"The Department of Kentucky State Police shall maintain an automated listing of license holders and pertinent information, and this information shall be available upon request, at all times to all Kentucky, federal, and other states' law enforcement agencies. A request for the entire list of licensees, or for all licensees in a geographic area, shall be denied. Only requests relating to a named licensee shall be honored or available to law enforcement agencies. Information on applications for licenses, names and addresses, or other identifying information relating to license holders shall be confidential and shall not be made available except to law enforcement agencies. No request for lists of local or statewide permit holders shall be made to any state or local law enforcement agency, peace officer, or other agency of government other than the Department of Kentucky State Police, and no state or local law enforcement agency, peace officer, or agency of government, other than the Department of Kentucky State Police, shall provide any information to any requester not entitled to it by law."
Therefore, your request is denied in its entirety in accordance with KRS 61.870, KRS 61.878(1)(l) and KRS 237.110.
Ms. Shipley initiated this appeal on December 13, 2017.
While Ms. Shipley argues that she is entitled to records relating to her CCDW permit under KRS 61.884, we observe that that section merely provides: "Any person shall have access to any public record relating to him or in which he is mentioned by name, upon presentation of appropriate identification, subject to the provisions of KRS 61.878 ." (Emphasis added.) One of those provisions is KRS 61.878(1)(l), which exempts from disclosure "[p]ublic records or information the disclosure of which is prohibited or restricted or otherwise made confidential by enactment of the General Assembly."
In 04-ORD-060, we found the key statement in KRS 237.110, that "information on applications for licenses, names and addresses, or other identifying information relating to license holders shall be confidential and shall not be made available except to law enforcement agencies, " to constitute "unambiguous language" expressed in "mandatory terms" and incorporated into the Open Records Act by KRS 61.878(1)(l). 4 Thus, we held that an individual's request for "full and complete copies of all materials contained within the file on [a CCDW permit holder and his permit] whether that [is] test scores, training materials, or the license itself and/or renewals of the same" was properly denied on the basis of that statutory language. The fact that Ms. Shipley requested records and information related to her own permit, rather than someone else's, does not distinguish this appeal from 04-ORD-060, since there is no suggestion that Ms. Shipley made her request on behalf of a law enforcement agency and only such agencies are entitled to the records.
In her appeal, Ms. Shipley alleges that she was "[i]nitially . . . informed that current and former law enforcement (including prosecutors) were permitted to view this information." (Emphasis added.) She does not state who told her this, or whether that person had authority to make such a representation on behalf of KSP. In any case, we find no basis under KRS 237.110 for the KSP to provide CCDW-related information to any person or entity other than a law enforcement agency. Therefore, although Ms. Shipley vaguely implies that she is either a former law enforcement officer or a former prosecutor, she would not be entitled to access those records under the terms of KRS 237.110(10) even assuming that to be the case. Accordingly, we find no violation of the Open Records Act.
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 shall be notified of any action in circuit court, but shall not be named as a party in that action or in any subsequent proceeding.
Footnotes
Footnotes