Invasion of Privacy
| Cited | Statutes | Annotation |
|---|---|---|
| 2012 Ky. App. LEXIS 44 | 61.878 | Proffer given to the Kentucky Office of the Attorney General relating to a company’s business practices was not exempt from disclosure under KRS 61.878(1)(a) because disclosure did not amount to a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy; the proffer was not inherently personal. Moreover, there was a diminished expectation of privacy in the information that was given since it was known that it could have been used in future civil or criminal litigation. Lawson v. Office of the Atty., 2012 Ky. App. LEXIS 44 (Ky. Ct. App. Mar. 2, 2012), aff'd, 415 S.W.3d 59, 2013 Ky. LEXIS 640 (Ky. 2013). Link |
| 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16394 | 61.872 | Conciliation agreement between the city and the employee was a settlement involving the payment of public funds, which remained a public record, and to the extent that the conciliation agreement contained personal information including the employee’s salary and accommodations, the disclosure of that information was not an unwarranted invasion of her privacy such that it would have been highly offensive to the reasonable person. Therefore, because the conciliation agreement was a public record under KRS 61.870 et seq., the office manager did not intrude into the employee’s right of seclusion by possessing a public record, and thus, the employee’s claim against the office manager for unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another based on her alleged possession of her conciliation agreement failed as a matter of law. Washington v. City of Georgetown, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16394 (E.D. Ky. Mar. 3, 2009). Link |
| Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 61.878 | 61.878 | Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 61.878(1)(a) did not permit the withholding of the entire internal affairs files, but disclosure of information that was personal in nature, such as social security numbers, was prohibited and constituted an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Commonwealth v. Trageser, 600 S.W.3d 749, 2020 Ky. App. LEXIS 52 (Ky. Ct. App. 2020). Link |
| Cape Publications v. Univ. of Louisville | 61.871, 61.878, 61.870 | Names of donors to a public university’s foundation who had not requested anonymity were subject to the disclosure requirement of KRS 61.871, as the foundation was a public entity under KRS 61.870, and the donors had no reasonable expectation of privacy. Cape Pub'ns, Inc. v. Univ. of Louisville Found., Inc., 260 S.W.3d 818, 2008 Ky. LEXIS 176 (Ky. 2008). Link |
| Cape Publications v. Univ. of Louisville | 61.878, 61.870 | As the status of a public university’s foundation as a public entity under KRS 61.870 had not been clearly established, it was reasonable for donors to the foundation who requested anonymity to expect their request to be honored. Therefore, a newspaper was properly denied access to donor identities and the amounts of their donations under Kentucky's Open Records Act. Cape Pub'ns, Inc. v. Univ. of Louisville Found., Inc., 260 S.W.3d 818, 2008 Ky. LEXIS 176 (Ky. 2008). Link |
| Cape Publications v. Univ. of Louisville | 61.878, 61.870 | Future donors to the University of Lousiville Foundation are on notice that their gifts are being made to a public institution and, therefore, are subject to disclosure under KRS 61.871 regardless of any requests for anonymity. Cape Pub'ns, Inc. v. Univ. of Louisville Found., Inc., 260 S.W.3d 818, 2008 Ky. LEXIS 176 (Ky. 2008). Link |
| Hines v. Commonwealth of Kentucky | 61.878 | The trial court did not err by finding that individual property owners’ privacy interests outweighed the negligible public interest in releasing individualized valuation information regarding unclaimed property and that disclosure of such information as requested by the appellant would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Hines v. Commonwealth, 41 S.W.3d 872, 2001 Ky. App. LEXIS 39 (Ky. Ct. App. 2001). Link |
| Kentucky Bd. of Exam. v. Courier-Journal | 61.872, 61.878 | File of complaints by psychologist’s clients alleging sexual misconduct was a public record containing information “of a very personal nature,” disclosure of which would have constituted a serious invasion of personal privacy. Kentucky Bd. of Examiners of Psychologists v. Courier-Journal & Louisville Times Co., 826 S.W.2d 324, 1992 Ky. LEXIS 35 (Ky. 1992). Link |
| Ky. New Era, Inc. v. City of Hopkinsville | 61.878 | Newspaper’s unsupported speculation that the victims, witnesses, and uncharged suspects referred to in the police department’s arrest and incident reports may have shed light on police misconduct did not outweigh those citizens’ substantial privacy interests. Ky. New Era v. City of Hopkinsville, 415 S.W.3d 76, 2013 Ky. LEXIS 644 (Ky. 2013). Link |
| Ky. New Era, Inc. v. City of Hopkinsville | 61.878 | Lower courts properly found that the witnesses, victims, and uncharged suspects referred to in the police department’s arrest and incident reports, adults and juveniles alike, had privacy interests in addresses, phone numbers, social security numbers, and driver’s license numbers that implicated KRS 61.878(1)(a) given that citizens had more than a de minimus interest in the confidentiality of such information. Ky. New Era v. City of Hopkinsville, 415 S.W.3d 76, 2013 Ky. LEXIS 644 (Ky. 2013). Link |
| Lexington-Fayette v. Herald-Leader Co. | 61.872 | Unredacted copies of final settlement agreements which showed payments made by government in connection with lawsuits against the police department were not covered by the privacy exception contained in subdivision (1)(a) of KRS 61.878 even though two or three of the agreements contained confidentiality clauses whereby settlement recipients and their attorneys agreed not to disclose the terms of the agreements. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Gov't v. Lexington Herald-Leader Co., 941 S.W.2d 469, 1997 Ky. LEXIS 38 (Ky. 1997). Link |
| Lexington-Fayette v. Herald-Leader Co. | 61.878 | Unredacted copies of final settlement agreements which showed payments made by government in connection with lawsuits against the police department were not covered by the privacy exception contained in subdivision (1)(a) of this section even though two (2) or three (3) of the agreements contained confidentiality clauses whereby settlement recipients and their attorneys agreed not to disclose the terms of the agreements. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Gov't v. Lexington Herald-Leader Co., 941 S.W.2d 469, 1997 Ky. LEXIS 38 (Ky. 1997). Link |
| Palmer v. Driggers | 61.878 | Complaint against police officer, charging specific acts of misconduct while on duty, presented a matter of unique public interest; while the allegations were of a personal nature, their disclosure would not constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of the officer’s privacy and, therefore, be exempt from public disclosure under KRS 61.878(1)(a). Palmer v. Driggers, 60 S.W.3d 591, 2001 Ky. App. LEXIS 1165 (Ky. Ct. App. 2001). Link |
| Zink v. Commonwealth, Department of Workers' Claims, Labor Cabinet | 61.878 | Because the privacy interests of injured employees in personal details, such as home address, telephone number, and social security numbers, appearing on the S.F.1 forms required to be filed with Department of Worker’s Claims pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Act substantially outweigh the negligible Open Records Act related public interest in disclosure, such disclosure would constitute a “clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” under subsection (1)(a) of this section. Zink v. Department of Workers' Claims, Labor Cabinet, 902 S.W.2d 825, 1994 Ky. App. LEXIS 141 (Ky. Ct. App. 1994). Link |
| Zink v. Commonwealth, Department of Workers' Claims, Labor Cabinet | 61.872, 61.878 | In determining whether a request for certain public records constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of person privacy under KRS 61.878(1)(a), the court must first determine whether the subject information is of a “personal nature” and if it finds it is a must then determine whether public disclosure “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” This latter determination entails a “comparative weighing of antagonistic interests” in which the privacy interest in nondisclosure is balanced against the general rule of inspection and its underlying policy of openness for the public good. Zink v. Department of Workers' Claims, Labor Cabinet, 902 S.W.2d 825, 1994 Ky. App. LEXIS 141 (Ky. Ct. App. 1994). Link |
Disclaimer:
The Sunshine Law Library is not exhaustive and may contain errors from source documents or the import process. Nothing on this website should be taken as legal advice. It is always best to consult with primary sources and appropriate counsel before taking any action.
The Sunshine Law Library is not exhaustive and may contain errors from source documents or the import process. Nothing on this website should be taken as legal advice. It is always best to consult with primary sources and appropriate counsel before taking any action.