25-ORD-010
January 10, 2025
In re: Timothy Lauderdale/Kentucky State Police
Summary: The Kentucky State Police (“KSP”) did not violate the Open
Records Act (“the Act”) when it denied a request that failed to contain a
statement demonstrating that the applicant is a resident of the
Commonwealth.
Open Records Decision
Timothy Lauderdale (“Appellant”) submitted a request to KSP for a copy of
“the dashcam (and any related bodycam) videos” from a July 2024 incident involving
an identified state trooper and led to an arrest. In a timely response, KSP denied the
request because the Appellant “is not a ‘Resident of the Commonwealth’ within the
meaning of KRS 61.870(10)” and “does not have a statutory right to inspect public
records.” This appeal followed.
Any “resident of the Commonwealth” may apply to inspect records. However,
any application to inspect records must contain the name and signature of the person
making the request. KRS 61.872(2)(a). Moreover, the official records custodian may
require a person requesting to inspect records “to provide a statement in the written
application of the manner in which the applicant is a resident of the Commonwealth
under KRS 61.870(10)(a) to (f).” KRS 61.872(2)(a).Here, the Appellant did not state in his application how he qualified as a
“resident of the Commonwealth.”1 Therefore, KSP did not violate the Act when it
denied his request.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/ Matthew Ray
Matthew Ray
Assistant Attorney General
#501
Distributed to:
Timothy Lauderdale
Samantha A. Bevins
Stephanie Dawson
Mitchel S. Hazelett
1
When KSP denied the request, it informed the Appellant it was “closing [his] request” and it “would
no longer be monitor[ing]” the request in its online open records portal. The Appellant then provided
a statement through the portal explaining how he qualified as a resident of the Commonwealth. But
a requester does not meet his obligation under KRS 61.872(2)(a) by belatedly providing a statement of
residency through a medium he has been informed is no longer being monitored.
2
On appeal, KSP informed the Office that it first received the Appellant’s statement of residency in
this appeal and then processed his request as a new request, which it denied. Under KRS 61.880(2)(a),
this Office’s mandate is to review the request for records and the agency’s response to determine
whether the agency violated the Act. In finding KSP’s initial response to the request complied with
the Act, the Office has carried out its mandate. The Office declines to consider here the new issues
raised for the first time on appeal regarding the sufficiency of KSP’s subsequent response. See, e.g.,
23-ORD-333 n.1; 22-ORD-200 n.2; 22-ORD-170 n.2; 22-ORD-142 n.3; 21-ORD-177 (stating the Office
may decline to consider new issues raised by the parties’ subsequent correspondence on appeal). If the
Appellant believes KSP’s subsequent response was insufficient, he may initiate a separate appeal by
providing the Office with a copy of his original request and KSP’s subsequent response. See
KRS 61.880(2)(a).