25-ORD-098
April 8, 2025
In re: Carolyn West/Graves County Sheriff’s Office
Summary: The Office cannot find that the Graves County Sheriff’s
Office (“the Sheriff”) violated the Open Records Act (“the Act”) because
the Office is unable to resolve the factual dispute between the parties.
Open Records Decision
On March 3, 2025, Carolyn West (“Appellant”) submitted a request seeking
“[a]ll disciplinary records related to” two deputy sheriffs. On March 12, 2025, the
Appellant initiated this appeal claiming she had not yet “received these records” she
requested.
Under KRS 61.880(1), upon receiving a request for records under the Act, a
public agency “shall determine within five (5) [business] days . . . after the receipt of
any such request whether to comply with the request and shall notify in writing the
person making the request, within the five (5) day period, of its decision.” Here, on
March 3, 2025, the Appellant submitted a request to the Sheriff, and on March 12,
2025, she initiated this appeal, claiming she had not received the requested records.
For its part, on appeal, the Sheriff explains that it received the Appellant’s request
on March 3, 2025, and mailed a timely response on March 7, 2025. As proof, the
Sheriff provides a copy of that response granting the Appellant’s request to inspect
records.1 Thus, there is a factual dispute between the parties.
1
The Sheriff also provides a response it issued on March 3, 2025, confirming receipt of the
Appellant’s request, as well as 27 pages of communications between it and the Appellant. In its March
7 response, the Sheriff asserted that, because the Appellant resides in Graves County, it was electing
to require her to first inspect the records in person. The Office has previously recognized that the “right
to obtain copies of the records is merely incidental to his right under KRS 61.874(1); i.e., the right to
obtain copies ‘[u]pon inspection.’” 21-ORD-143. Under KRS 61.872(3), public records may be inspected
either “[d]uring the regular office hours of the public agency” or “[b]y receiving copies of the public
records from the public agency through the mail.” However, the second alternative is not available toThe Office has regularly found it is unable to resolve factual disputes between
the parties to an appeal under KRS 61.880(2)(a), including disputes about whether
the requested records were actually made available to the requester. See, e.g., 23-
ORD-220 (the Office cannot resolve a factual dispute as to if a requester received a
public agency's response to their request); 22-ORD-010 (the Office is unable to resolve
a factual dispute between the parties as to whether the records that have been
provided are different from those records sought but not provided); 19-ORD-083
(stating this Office cannot “resolve the factual dispute between the parties regarding
the disparity between records which have been provided and those sought but not
provided”). Similarly, here, the Office cannot resolve the factual dispute between the
parties as to whether the Sheriff actually made the records available to the Appellant.
Thus, the Office cannot find that the Sheriff violated the Act.
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
all requesters. Rather, “[t]he public agency shall mail copies of the public records to a person whose
residence or principal place of business is outside the county in which the public records are located
after he or she precisely describes the public records which are readily available within the public
agency.” KRS 61.872(3)(b) (emphasis added). Thus, a person who does not live or work outside the
county where the records are located is not entitled to receive copies without having first inspected the
records in person at the suitable facility provided by the agency. See 21-ORD-143; 21-ORD-157. The
Sheriff asserts that the Appellant resides or has her principal place of business within Graves County.
The Appellant does not refute the Sheriff’s assertion. However, because the Appellant did not provide
the Sheriff’s response when initiating this appeal, this issue is not properly before the Office. See
KRS 61.880(2)(a).#115
Distributed to:
Carolyn West
Jeremy Prince
John Cunningham