24-ORD-213
September 27, 2024
In re: Matthew Belrose/Hardin County 911 Center
Summary: The Hardin County 911 Center (“the Center”) violated the
Open Record Act (“the Act”) when it withheld records under
KRS 61.878(1)(j).
Open Records Decision
Matthew Belrose (“Appellant”) submitted a request to the Center for “[a]ny
communications that led to the dispatch of [the] Sheriff Deputy” to a particular
elementary school on July 15, 2024, and specified that his request was related to his
interaction with that Deputy. The Center stated that it did not receive any 911 calls
on that date but withheld other responsive records “pursuant to KRS 61.878(1)(j) as
[the record] contains” preliminary recommendations and opinions expressed by law
enforcement. This appeal followed.
On appeal, the Center explains that the only responsive records that exist are
the “radio traffic between law enforcement and dispatch and the Computer Aided
Dispatch (CAD) entry reflecting those conversations.” The Center maintains that
those records are exempt under KRS 61.878(1)(j) because the officer and dispatcher
“express opinions related to the facts as known to them at the time.”
KRS 61.878(1)(j) exempts from disclosure “[p]reliminary recommendations,
and preliminary memoranda in which opinions are expressed or policies formulated
or recommended.” If a public agency adopts such opinions or recommendations as the
basis of a final action, the exempt status of the record is lost. See Univ. of Ky. v.
Courier–Journal & Louisville Times Co., 830 S.W.2d 373, 378 (Ky. 1992). The Office
has previously held that “computer aided dispatch reports, . . . 911 calls[,] and police
video footage . . . are not drafts, or memorandums recommending a policy or course
of action. [They] are evidence of a past event and [are] not subject change.” 21-ORD-
052.Here, the Center is withholding recordings of conversations between its law
enforcement and dispatch employees and the CAD reports documenting those
conversations. The Center provided the Office with the recordings to facilitate its
review. See KRS 61.880(2)(c). Having reviewed the recordings, it is clear they are not
exempt under KRS 61.878(1)(j). In each of the recordings, law enforcement and
dispatch employees discuss the Appellant’s actions and share information regarding
how the July 15, 2024, incident will be handled. But these conversations include only
discussions of the Appellant’s actions that necessitated a law enforcement response
and the officer’s prospective plans. The recordings do not contain preliminary
recommendations or opinions about what course of action should be taken.1 Thus, the
recorded conversations between law enforcement and dispatch and the CAD entry
documenting those conversations are not exempt under KRS 61.878(1)(j).
Accordingly, the Center violated the Act when it withheld the records pursuant to
that exemption.
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
#371
Distributed to:
Matt Belrose
Jenniffer B. Oldham
1
Moreover, even if the recordings did constitute preliminary recommendations or opinions, that
exempt status was lost when the officer undertook the course of action discussed in the conversations
with dispatch. See Univ. of Ky., 830 S.W.2d at 378.24-ORD-213
Page 3