23-ORD-141
June 22, 2023
In re: Julius Catlett, Jr./Hopkinsville Police Department
Summary: The Hopkinsville Police Department (the “Department”) did
not violate the Open Records Act when it denied a request for a copy of
body-worn camera footage depicting the interior of a residence.
Open Records Decision
On April 17, 2023, inmate Julius Catlett, Jr. (“Appellant”) submitted a request
to the Department for copies of body-worn camera footage recorded during the search
of a residence in connection with his criminal case.1 In a timely response2, the
Department denied his request for a copy of the footage under KRS 61.168(4)(a)
because it depicts the interior of a residence. However, the Department offered to
make the footage available for the Appellant’s inspection at the Department’s
headquarters because the request was made by a person directly involved in the
incident. See KRS 61.168(5)(d). This appeal followed.
1
The Appellant also sought copies of any “witness statements,” whether written or recorded,
involving the same case. The Department advised that copies of those records would be made available
to the Appellant upon his payment of the associated copying costs. The Appellant does not challenge
that aspect of the Department’s response. However, he also claims to have submitted a second request
to the Department for records containing the names of the officers who executed a search warrant.
Although the Appellant provides a copy of the Department’s response to his second request, he did not
provide the Office with a copy of his second request. Accordingly, he has failed to provide the necessary
documents to invoke this Office’s review of the Department’s disposition of his second request. See
KRS 61.880(2)(a) (requiring a person to submit to the Attorney General a copy of both the request and
the agency’s response).
2
In the Department’s response issued by the City Clerk on May 1, 2023, the Clerk stated the
Department received the request on April 24, 2023, and forwarded it to her that day. Because the
Department received the request on April 24, 2023, its response was timely issued within five business
days. See KRS 61.880(1).The Appellant argues that he is unable to view the requested footage in-person
at the Department because he is currently incarcerated. However, under
KRS 61.168(4)(a), “a public agency may elect not to disclose bodyworn camera
recordings containing video or audio footage that . . . [i]ncludes the interior of a place
of a private residence where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, unless the
legal owner or lessee with legal possession of the residence requests in writing that
the release be governed solely under the provisions of KRS 61.870 to 61.884.”
Notwithstanding KRS 61.168(4)(a), if the requester is “a person . . . that is directly
involved in the incident contained in the bodyworn camera recording, it shall be made
available by the public agency to the requesting party for viewing on the premises of
the public agency, but the public agency shall not be required to make a copy of the
recording except as provided in KRS 61.169.” KRS 61.168(5)(d) (emphasis added).
Copies of such footage shall only be provided to an attorney representing the person
meeting the requirements of KRS 61.168(5)(d), and only after the attorney executes
an affidavit making certain assurances. See KRS 61.169.
Here, KRS 61.168(5)(d) states the Department “shall not be required to make
a copy” of the footage for the Appellant. Rather, the statute only requires the
Department to make the footage available for his inspection at the Department’s
headquarters. KRS 61.168(5)(d) does not contain an exception for those who are
unable to appear in-person at the agency’s headquarters due to their incarceration.
Moreover, the Appellant is not an attorney, and therefore, KRS 61.169 does not
require the Department to provide him with a copy of the footage. Accordingly, the
Department did not violate the Act when it denied the Appellant’s request.
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating an action in the
appropriate circuit court under KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882 within 30 days from
the date of this decision. Under 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/ Marc Manley
Marc Manley
Assistant Attorney General#212
Distributed to:
Julius Catlett, Jr. #269780
H. Douglas Willen
Christine M. Pletcher