23-ORD-055
March 13, 2023
In re: Micheal Whitehead/Louisville Metro Police Department
Summary: The
Louisville
Metro
Police
Department
(“the
Department”) violated the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it did not
respond to a request to inspect records. The Department did not violate
the Act when it denied a request seeking information rather than public
records.
Open Records Decision
On January 14, 2023, Micheal Whitehead (“Appellant”), submitted a request
to the Department to inspect a variety of records related to traffic accidents.1 Having
received no response to this request by February 6, 2023, the Appellant initiated this
appeal.
Upon receiving a request to inspect public records, a public agency “shall
determine within five (5) [business] days . . . 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 five (5) day period, of its decision.” KRS 61.880(1). Here, the
Appellant claims to have submitted a request on January 14, but never received a
1
Specifically, he requested, from January 1, 2015 to the date of the request: (1) “[t]he number of all
fatal traffic collisions . . . categorized as . . . leaving the scene of an accident/hit and run”; (2) “[t]he
number of traffic incidents investigated” by the Department’s Traffic Unit or the name of the agency
that asked the Department to investigate; (3) the locations where requests (1) and (2) took place; (4)
“[t]he number of all fatal leaving the scene of an accident/hit and run cases that resulted in an arrest”;
(5) “[t]he number of fatal leaving the scene of an accident/hit and run cases that resulted in an arrest
or charge”; (6) [t]he number of fatal leaving the scene of an accident/hit and run cases that are
currently open, pending, and or have no named suspect charged or arrested”; (7) “[t]he number of all
leaving the scene of an accident/hit and run cases that were not fatalities but resulted in any
measurable injury”; and (8) “[t]he number of all leaving the scene of an accident/hit and run cases that
resulted in a charge or arrest.”response. On appeal, the Department admits it failed to respond to the Appellant’s
request. Thus, the Department violated the Act when it failed to respond to the
Appellant’s request within five business days.
However, on appeal, the Department states it is denying the request because
the Appellant seeks “information and data analysis” instead of public records. This
Office agrees. The Appellant’s request sought “the number” of certain categories of
traffic accidents, the status and amount of investigations into those traffic accidents,
and the locations of those traffic accidents. These requests do not describe public
records to be inspected, but rather, they seek information. See, e.g., 21-ORD-014 (an
agency properly denied a request seeking “the total number” of unemployment claims
filed because the request sought information and did not describe public records to be
inspected). The Act does not require public agencies to fulfill requests for information,
but only requests for records. KRS 61.872; Dept. of Revenue v. Eifler, 436 S.W.3d 530,
534 (Ky. App. 2013) (“The ORA does not dictate that public agencies must gather and
supply information not regularly kept as part of its records.”). Accordingly, the
Department did not violate the Act when it denied the Appellant’s request as one
seeking information rather than public records.2
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 within 30 days
from the date of this decision. 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. The Attorney General will accept notice of
the complaint emailed to OAGAppeals@ky.gov.
Daniel Cameron
Attorney General
s/ Zachary M. Zimmerer
Zachary M. Zimmerer
Assistant Attorney General
#066
2
Nevertheless, the Department has provided the Appellant with data from its “criminal
investigation” database and its “arrest” database that he may analyze to discover the information he
requested.Distributed to:
Micheal Allen Whitehead
Alice Lyon
DeAndrea Baltimore
Natalie S. Johnson