24-ORD-124
May 16, 2024
In re: Krystal Justice/Hodgenville Police Department
Summary: The Office is unable to find that the Hodgenville Police
Department (the “Department”) violated the Open Records Act (“the
Act”) because the Office is unable to resolve the factual dispute between
the parties about whether the Department received a request to inspect
records.
Open Records Decision
Krystal Justice (“Appellant”) claims that on April 15, 2024, she submitted a
request to the Department for “[a]ny reports or body camera footage with audio of a
traffic stop involving” an identified person at 10:00 p.m. on April 13, 2024. On April
23, 2024, having received no response from the Department, the Appellant initiated
this appeal.
Upon receiving a request for records under the Act, 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). The Office has
found it cannot resolve factual disputes between parties, such as whether an agency
received a request to inspect records. See, e.g., 23-ORD-303; 23-ORD-005; 22-ORD-
216; 22-ORD-148; 22-ORD-125; 22-ORD-100; 22-ORD-051; 21-ORD-163.
Here, the Appellant claims she submitted a request to the Department on April
15, 2024, but it did not respond to her request.1 On appeal, the Department claims it
1
As proof, on appeal, the Appellant provides a screen capture of blank form from the online portal
she used to submit her request. The Appellant also admits that the online portal “does not give [a]
confirmation email that it has been summited” but that in the past she has submitted “numerous open
records requests” and “never had an issue with this until now.”does not “recall seeing the Open Records Request,” but now claims it has provided the
Appellant with the requested records. The Office is unable to resolve the factual
dispute between the parties about whether the Department received the Appellant’s
request to inspect records or find that it violated the Act.
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.
Russell Coleman
Attorney General
/s/ Matthew Ray
Matthew Ray
Assistant Attorney General
#212
Distributed to:
Krystal Justice
Beth Sadler
James Richardson
John Nicholas