24-ORD-172
July 30, 2024
In re: Bradley Morris/Mayfield Police Department
Summary: The Mayfield Police Department (“the Department”) did not
violate the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it did not grant a request
for records that do not exist.
Open Records Decision
Inmate Bradley Morris (“Appellant”) submitted a request to the Department
for a “[c]opy of all complaints, violations, [and] reprimands pertaining to” a specific
Department officer. The Department denied the Appellant’s request because “there
are no records pertaining to [his] request.” This appeal followed.
Here, initially, and on appeal, the Department maintains that it does not
possess any records responsive to the Appellant’s request. Once a public agency states
affirmatively that a record does not exist, the burden shifts to the requester to present
a prima facie case that the requested record does or should exist. See Bowling v.
Lexington–Fayette Urb. Cnty. Gov’t, 172 S.W.3d 333, 341 (Ky. 2005). If the requester
makes a prima facie case that the records do or should exist, then the public agency
“may also be called upon to prove that its search was adequate.” City of Fort Thomas
v. Cincinnati Enquirer, 406 S.W.3d 842, 848 n.3 (Ky. 2013) (citing Bowling, 172
S.W.3d at 341).
Here, in an attempt to make a prima facie case that the Department does or
should possess the records he seeks, the Appellant asserts that the Department must
possess records responsive to his request because the specific officer has “been cited”
for two different offenses. However, the Appellant does not provide any evidence that
the alleged offenses occurred or caused the specific officer to be cited. The Office has
previously found that a requester’s bare assertion that records exist is not enough toestablish a prima facie case that the requested records actually exist. See, e.g., 23-
ORD-335; 22-ORD-040. As a result, the Office cannot find the Department violated
the act when it denied a request for records that do not exist.
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
#298
Distributed to:
Bradley Morris #188310
Kristi M. Malone
Nathan Kent
Jay M. Matheny