25-ORD-132
May 22, 2025
In re: Kurt Wallace/Bullitt County Attorney’s Office
Summary: The Bullitt County Attorney’s Office (“the Agency”) violated
the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it failed to cite the specific
exception authorizing its redaction of responsive records. The Agency
did not violate the Act when it provided what it believed to be responsive
records or when it redacted personal information from public records.
Open Records Decision
Kurt Wallace (“Appellant”) submitted a request to the Agency for three
categories of records. First, he requested “the redacted records used to select and
approve an attorney currently employed by the” Agency, including each attorney’s
“License to Practice Law.” Second, he requested a copy of all the agency’s attorneys’
“License from the Kentucky Bar Association.” Third, he requested a copy of the
Agency’s attorneys’ “state-issued identification.” In response to the first and second
parts of the request, the Agency explained that it is not in possession of its attorneys’
certificates of admission to practice law,1 but it did provide a blank copy of “the job
application required of Assistant County Attorneys.” Finally, in response to the third
part of the request, the Agency provided redacted copies of its attorneys’ driver’s
licenses. This appeal followed.
On appeal, the Appellant presents two issues. First, he claims “he requested a
redacted copy of the employment application for each [agency attorney], not a blank
form.” Second, he alleges the Agency over-redacted its employees’ driver’s licenses.
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
1
The Office has previously upheld the Agency’s similar response to the Appellant explaining that it
does not possess its attorneys’ “bar cards.” See 25-ORD-063.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.” KRS 61.880(1). If an agency
denies in whole or in part the inspection of any record, its response must include “a
statement of the specific exception authorizing the withholding of the record and a
brief explanation of how the exception applies to the record withheld.” Id.
A public agency does not violate the Act when it makes a reasonable
construction of an ambiguous request and acts accordingly. See, e.g., 22-ORD-240; 20-
ORD-153. Here, the Agency explains that it “interpreted” the first part of the
Appellant’s request as seeking the Agency’s “form job application.” The Appellant
asserts that this record was not responsive to his request. Although the Appellant’s
request did seek “redacted records,” having reviewed the entirety of the Appellant’s
request, the Office concludes the Agency’s construction of it was reasonable. Thus,
the Agency did not violate the Act by providing its form job application in response to
the Appellant’s request.
Regarding the redaction of its attorneys’ driver’s licenses, the Agency stated
only that it was providing “redacted copies” of the records. The Agency did not cite
any specific exception authorizing it to withhold the requested records or to redact
information from the requested records. Thus, the Agency violated the Act.
Turning to the propriety of the redactions made by the Agency,
KRS 61.878(1)(a) exempts from disclosure “[p]ublic records containing information of
a personal nature where the public disclosure thereof would constitute a clearly
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” The Appellant provided copies of the
redacted driver’s licenses. The redacted information includes the driver’s license
number, home address, date of birth, and photograph of each attorney. Social
Security numbers, home addresses, personal telephone numbers, dates of birth, and
driver’s license numbers are types of personal information pertaining to private
individuals that may categorically be redacted from records when they provide no
insight into how the public agency performed its public duties. See Ky. New Era, Inc.
v. City of Hopkinsville, 415 S.W.3d 76 (2013). Thus, the Agency did not violate the
Act when it redacted this information.
Regarding the redacted photographs of the Agency’s attorneys, the Kentucky
Supreme Court has established a balancing test where “the public’s right to expect
its agencies properly to execute their functions” is measured against the
“countervailing public interest in personal privacy” Ky. Bd. of Exam’rs of Psychs. v.
Courier-Journal & Louisville Times Co., 826 S.W.2d 324, 328 (Ky. 1992). Whether apublic agency has properly relied on KRS 61.878(1)(a) is “intrinsically situational.”
Id. In reviewing an agency’s denial of an open records request based on the personal
privacy exemption, the courts and this Office balance the public’s right to know what
is happening within government against the personal privacy interest at stake in the
record. See Zink v. Commonwealth, Dep’t of Workers’ Claims, 902 S.W.2d 825, 828
(Ky. App. 1994).
The Office has held that public employees have a privacy interest in their
photographs. See, e.g., 21-ORD-117; 20-ORD-005; 11-ORD-139; 08-ORD-014. And an
ordinary photograph of an employee, which does not depict the employee engaging in
any type of governmental activity, would shed little light on “what [the] government
is doing.” Zink, 902 S.W.2d at 829. Here, the Appellant presents no countervailing
public interest in disclosure of the Agency’s attorneys’ driver’s license photographs.
Although he asserts that public employees have a “diminished expectation of privacy”
related to their public duties, he fails to explain how their driver’s license
photographs relate to their public duties. Rather, such photographs shed little light
on the Agency’s execution of its functions. Accordingly, the Agency did not violate the
Act when it redacted its employees’ photographs.
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
#176
Distributed to:
Kurt Wallace
Tammy Baker