Skip to main content

Opinion

Opinion By: Daniel Cameron, Attorney General; James M. Herrick, Assistant Attorney General

Open Records Decision

On July 2, 2021, Melissa Barlow ("Appellant") made a request to the Sheriff's Office, seeking copies of all records "pertaining to the pit type dog named Coco, who was seized recently." In response, the Sheriff's Office produced an incident report, unaccompanied by any written response notifying the Appellant whether it was complying with or denying her request. The Appellant, believing that the incident report contained redactions, asked the Sheriff's Office to release the name of the dog's owner. After receiving no reply, the Appellant initiated this appeal.

Under KRS 61.880(1), a public agency must, within five business days, "determine . . . whether to comply with the request and [to] notify in writing the person making the request, within the five (5) day period, of its decision." This written response must contain "a brief explanation" if the agency makes any redactions. See id . Here, the Sheriff's Office merely provided a document with no written explanation of whether the request for records was granted or partially denied. Thus, the Sheriff's Office violated the Act. See, e.g. , 21-ORD-090 (finding that a public agency violated the Act when it failed to issue a written response accompanying its partial production of records).

On appeal, the Sheriff's Office explains that the incident report it provided to the Appellant was not redacted. Accordingly, this Office finds that the Sheriff's Office complied with the Act to the extent that it provided the responsive records in their entirety.

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 proceedings.

LLM Summary
The decision finds that the Sheriff's Office violated the Open Records Act by failing to provide a written response explaining whether the request for records was granted or partially denied when it produced an incident report in response to a request for records about a dog named Coco. The decision cites 21-ORD-090 to support the requirement for a written response in such cases. However, it was determined that the Sheriff's Office did comply with the Act by providing the records in their entirety, as there were no redactions in the incident report.
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:
Melissa Barlow
Agency:
Bourbon County Sheriff’s Office
Type:
Open Records Decision
Lexis Citation:
2021 KY. AG LEXIS 177
Cites:
Forward Citations:
Neighbors

Support Our Work

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