25-ORD-054
February 27, 2025
In re: Jeffrey Gegler/Kentucky State Police
Summary: The Kentucky State Police (“KSP”) did not violate the Open
Records Act (“the Act”) when it denied a request for a copy of body-worn
camera footage that depicts the interior of a hospital facility and footage
of a deceased body, and which does not fall under any exceptions in
KRS 61.168(5).
Open Records Decision
Jeffrey Gegler (“Appellant”) submitted a request to KSP for seven categories of
records1 related to “the incident at LifeSkills Adult Crisis Stabilization on the
morning of November 6, 2024.” KSP stated it would need additional time to process
the Appellant’s request2 but it would “send the aforementioned records to [the
Appellant] upon completion of the review process.”3 Now, the Appellant challenges
KSP’s non-provision of body-worn camera footage.
1
Specifically, the Appellant sought “All body cam and dashcam video footage”; “911 audio”; “Police
radio logs”; “Dispatch Audio”; “Phone logs and text messages by KSP officers”; “All investigative
reports”; and “All prior use of force reports” for the officers involved in the incident during their
employment with KSP.
2
The Appellant’s request and KSP’s response were previously the subject of 25-ORD-028, in which
the Appellant challenged KSP’s delayed response to his request. That decision did not address the
adequacy of KSP’s production of records because it was initiated prior to KSP providing any responsive
records.
3
KSP asserts the Appellant did not provide the Office with a copy of its final response, as is required
by KRS 61.880(2) (requiring a complaining party to provide the Attorney General with “a written
request to the public agency and the public agency’s written denial, if any”). However, while describing
its “final response,” KSP attached a copy of its response to the Appellant’s first appeal and paraphrased
the text of that response. That response cannot be considered KSP’s written denial because it was
addressed to the Office, not the Appellant. Regardless, the Office is satisfied that the Appellant may
appeal the non-production of certain records under KRS 61.880(2) by providing his original request
and KSP’s original response.Under KRS 61.168(4)(b) and (g), “a public agency may elect not to disclose
body-worn camera recordings containing video or audio footage that . . . [i]ncludes the
areas inside of a medical facility, counseling, or therapeutic program office where a
patient is registered to receive treatment, receiving treatment, waiting for treatment,
or being transported in the course of treatment” or “[i]ncludes the body of a deceased
individual.” Here, KSP explains the requested footage “reveals the interior of a
hospital facility and footage of a deceased body.”
Notwithstanding KRS 61.168(4)(b) and (g), if the footage “[d]epicts an
encounter between a public safety officer where there is a use of force, the disclosure
of the record shall be governed solely by” the Act. KRS 61.168(5)(a).4 The Appellant
asserts that a “citizen was shot and killed,” which makes KRS 61.168(5)(a) applicable.
However, KSP states the footage does “not meet any of the criteria for release
established in KRS 61.168(5).” The Appellant is correct that KRS 61.168(5)(a) would
apply if the requested footage shows an officer-involved shooting. But here, because
KSP has clearly stated the footage does “not meet any of the criteria for release
established in KRS 61.168(5),” it follows that the withheld footage does not depict
such a “show of force.” Accordingly, KSP did not violate the Act when it denied a
request for a body-worn camera recording that “reveals the interior of a hospital
facility and footage of a deceased body,” and which does not fall under any of the
exceptions in KRS 61.168(5).
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.
4
KRS 61.168(5) also provides that body camera footage shall be subject to the Act in three other
circumstances. See KRS 61.168(5)(b)–(d). Neither the Appellant nor KSP asserts that any of these
three circumstances applies to the footage at issue here.Russell Coleman
Attorney General
/s/ Zachary M. Zimmerer
Zachary M. Zimmerer
Assistant Attorney General
#046
Distributed to:
Jeffrey Gegler
Samantha A. Bevins, Staff Attorney III, Office of Legal Services, Justice and Public
Safety Cabinet
Stephanie Dawson, Official Custodian of Records, Public Records Branch, Kentucky
State Police
Mitchel S. Hazelett, Police Lieutenant, Kentucky State Police