24-ORD-256
December 3, 2024
In re: Jared Bennett/Louisville Metro Police Department
Summary: The Louisville Metro Police Department (the “Department”)
subverted the intent of the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it did not
respond to a request within five business days, and when it failed to
properly invoke KRS 61.872(5) to delay access to records by failing to
state the earliest date on which responsive records would be available
or give a detailed explanation for the cause of the delay.
Open Records Decision
On March 20, 2024, Jared Bennett (“Appellant”) submitted four requests to the
Department for “investigative files” and “investigative timelines and task lists”
related to “closed homicide cases” from the years 2014 to 2016 and 2020 to the
present. On March 29, 2024, the Department responded to each request indicating it
was granting the requests but also stating additional time was needed to fulfill the
requests because of the large number of responsive records.1 On June 6, 2024, the
Appellant requested an update on the status of his requests, and the Department
stated it was “locating files in archives” and would “reach back out to let [the
Appellant] know how many files [are located] and how long review/redaction will
take” On August 27, 2024, the Appellant again requested an update on the status of
his requests, and the Department stated “it would reach out” to a specific division “for
an update.” On October 30, 2024, having received no further response from the
Department, the Appellant initiated this appeal.
Under KRS 61.880(1), a public agency has five business days to fulfill or deny
a request for public records. This period may be extended if the records are “in active
use, in storage or not otherwise available,” but the agency must give “a detailed
1
The Department also requested the Appellant clarify what records were responsive to his request
for “investigative timelines and tasks lists.”explanation of the cause . . . for further delay and the place, time, and earliest date
on which the public record[s] will be available for inspection.” KRS 61.872(5). Here,
the Appellant submitted his request electronically on March 20, 2024, but the
Department did not respond until March 29, 2024, seven business days later.
Therefore, the Department failed to respond timely to the Appellant’s request.
Under KRS 61.880(4), a person may petition the Attorney General to review an
agency’s action if the “person feels the intent of [the Act] is being subverted by an
agency short of denial of inspection, including but not limited to . . . delay past the
five (5) day period described in [KRS 61.880(1) or] excessive extensions of time.” Here,
the Department’s responses indicated a delay was necessary, but the Department
failed to invoke KRS 61.872(5), state the earliest date on which the records would be
made available, or provide a detailed explanation for the delay. On appeal, the
Department now explains that 268 closed homicide investigative files are implicated
by the request, which range in size from “100 pages to multiple binders of documents.”
However, the Department still has not stated the earliest date on which the records
would be available for inspection. Accordingly, the Department subverted the Act,
within the meaning of KRS 61.880(4), when it failed to comply with KRS 61.872(5)
by failing to notify the Appellant of the earliest date on which records will be
available.
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#442
Distributed to:
Jared Bennett
Alice Lyon
Nicole Pang
Natalie S. Johnson
Annale Taylor