25-ORD-088
March 31, 2025
In re: Kaylae Price/Louisville Metro Government
Summary: Louisville Metro Government (“Metro”) did not violate the
Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it provided all records responsive to
a request and the requester did not present a prima facie case that
additional records existed.
Open Records Decision
On February 19, 2025, Kaylae Price (“the Appellant”) submitted a request to
Metro for “any and all . . . files associated with the death” of her father in 1997,
including “witness statements, who called into 911 and the time, and official police
report/death investigation including the weapon that was use[d], if gun residue was
present on his hands, etc.” Subsequently, the Appellant added that she wished to see
the photographs of the scene and “the results to the gun shot residue test and any
investigation of the type of bullet and the gun that was at the scene and if there’s
anything that shows it matched what was used, fingerprints, etc.” In response, Metro
provided the relevant police records it possessed, including the investigative case file,
the Crime Scene Unit file, photographs of the scene, and autopsy photographs.1 After
receiving those records, the Appellant inquired as to whether Metro possessed any
reports relating to gunshot residue or the identification of the weapon. Metro advised
her it had no additional records responsive to the request and that any gunshot
residue testing “would have been completed by KSP” (i.e., the Kentucky State Police),
or might not have been completed at all. This appeal followed.
The Appellant claims Metro has not provided all responsive records in its
possession. Specifically, she still seeks the results of gunshot residue testing or
weapon and bullet testing. Metro, however, reiterates that it has provided all
responsive records in its possession.2 Once a public agency states affirmatively that
1 Metro made certain minor redactions to the records that are not at issue in this appeal.
2
Metro asserts that any 911 records from 1997 have since been destroyed in accordance with the
Louisville Metro Records Retention Schedule.it does not possess any additional records, the burden shifts to the requester to
present a prima facie case that additional records do exist. See Bowling v. Lexington–
Fayette Urb. Cnty. Gov’t, 172 S.W.3d 333, 341 (Ky. 2005). If the requester establishes
a prima facie case that additional records do or should exist, “then the agency may
also be called upon to prove that its search was adequate.” City of Fort Thomas v.
Cincinnati Enquirer, 406 S.W.3d 842, 848 n.3 (Ky. 2013) (citing Bowling, 172 S.W.3d
at 341). To support a claim that the agency possesses responsive records it did not
provide, the Appellant must produce some evidence that calls into doubt the adequacy
of the agency’s search. See, e.g., 23-ORD-259; 95-ORD-96.
Here, the Appellant provides a copy of a report dated December 11, 1997, from
the Louisville Division of Police, Evidence Technician Unit, which refers to having
obtained “Exh. #1 – GSR test from victim.” The report further states Exhibit #1 was
“placed in the LPD Property Room under tag #97-14111.” While this report indicates
the former Louisville Division of Police was, at one time,3 in possession of a gunshot
residue test, it does not indicate that any report was ever generated from that test.
Accordingly, the Appellant has not presented a prima facie case that any missing test
reports exist. Therefore, the Office cannot find that Metro violated the Act in this case
by failing to conduct an adequate search or failing to provide additional records.4
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating an action in the
appropriate circuit court pursuant to KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882 within 30 days
from the date of this decision. Pursuant to 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/ James M. Herrick
James M. Herrick
Assistant Attorney General
3
The Appellant acknowledges that the physical evidence relating to the case no longer exists.
4
In an effort to show a pattern of inadequate searches for records by Metro, the Appellant provided
copies of certain other open records requests she submitted to Metro. Because the Appellant submitted
them in reference to this appeal, those submissions have been treated as correspondence pertaining to
the present appeal, rather than as new appeals.#94
Distribution:
Ms. Kaylae Price
Natalie S. Johnson, Esq.
Nicole Pang, Esq.
Alice Lyon, Esq.
Annale R. Taylor, Esq.