Skip to main content

24-ORD-185

August 28, 2024

In re: Makeda Charles/Louisville Metro Department of Corrections

Summary: The Louisville Metro Department of Corrections (“the
Department”) did not violate the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it
denied a request for records because the requester is not a resident of
the Commonwealth.

Open Records Decision

Makeda Charles (“Appellant”) submitted a request to the Department for
medical records related to her time as a patient at Central State Hospital.1 In
response, the Department denied the request under KRS 61.872(1) because the
Appellant is not a resident of the Commonwealth. This appeal followed.

KRS 61.872(1) states, “All public records shall be open for inspection by any
resident of the Commonwealth.” Thus, under KRS 61.872(2)(a), only a “resident of
the Commonwealth shall have the right to inspect public records.” The Act provides
seven ways in which a person may qualify as a “resident of the Commonwealth.” See
KRS 61.870(10). The term includes an individual residing in the Commonwealth, a
domestic business entity, a foreign business entity registered with the Secretary of
State, a person “that is employed and works at a location or locations within the
Commonwealth,” a person or business that owns real property in the Commonwealth,
or any person “that has been authorized to act on behalf of” one of these individuals.
KRS 61.870(10). A “resident of the Commonwealth” also includes a “newsgathering
organization” as defined in KRS 189.635(8)(b)1.a.–e. Id. If the requester fails to
provide a statement regarding his or her residency qualifications, then the agency’s

1
Specifically, the Appellant seeks the notes of hospital staff on particular dates, a police report
consulted by hospital staff, and any other medication records related to her in the possession of the
Department.records custodian may ask the requester to provide such a statement.
KRS 61.872(2)(a).

Here, the Appellant has not provided a statement explaining how she qualifies
as a resident of the Commonwealth. Moreover, the Office has previously found that
the Appellant is not a resident of the Commonwealth. See 24-ORD-135. Accordingly,
the Department did not violate the Act by denying the Appellant’s request because
she is not a “resident of the Commonwealth” under the Act.2

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/ Zachary M. Zimmerer

Zachary M. Zimmerer

Assistant Attorney General

2
The Department claims the Appellant has not perfected her appeal because the request she
attached to her appeal was not the request she submitted to the Department. See KRS 61.880(2)(a).
The Department has provided a copy of the request it received through its online portal. That request
contains text identical to the request provided by the Appellant. Moreover, the request provided by the
Department appears to include a PDF file with the same name as the PDF file contained in the request
the Appellant provided to the Office. The Department claims the copy of the request the Appellant
provided to the Office was submitted to the Department a week after her request and purported to be
a “substitute version of a HIPAA release.” Ultimately, the Office is unable to resolve factual disputes
between a requester and a public agency, including when the Appellant submitted what she claims to
be her request. See, e.g., 21-ORD-163. But because the Appellant does not have a right to demand
access to public records as a “resident of the Commonwealth” under KRS 61.872(2)(a), it is not
necessary for the Office to resolve the factual dispute.#326

Distributed to:

Makeda Charles
Alice Lyon
Nicole Pang
Natalie S. Johnson
Annale Taylor
Tauheedah El-Saadiq

LLM Summary
In 24-ORD-185, the Attorney General's Office upheld the decision of the Louisville Metro Department of Corrections to deny Makeda Charles' request for records on the basis that she is not a resident of the Commonwealth. The decision referenced previous rulings to support the residency requirement and addressed the limitations of the Office in resolving factual disputes about the records request submission.
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:
Makeda Charles
Agency:
Louisville Metro Department of Corrections
Type:
Open Records Decision
Neighbors

Support Our Work

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