Louisville Metro Police Department once again finds itself at the center of an open government controversy of its own making, according to Courier Journal staff writer Josh Wood.
https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/crime/2024/10/31/louisville-…
Wood reports:
"As the department is poised to increase its use of drones — purchasing 10 new aircraft this year alone and preparing to train new pilots — it is impossible to know where LMPD's drones are being dispatched or why, despite the past chief's assurances of transparency."
In May, former Chief Jacquelyn Gwinn-Villaroel "said the department would publicly release flight data — including the location where drones were used and the reasons for the flights — as some other cities do."
To date, LMPD has not made good on its commitment.
"In response to an open records request for flight data from The Courier Journal," Wood continues, "Louisville Metro Government redacted the locations and all notes about drone flights since the start of 2023, citing exemptions to Kentucky's open records law regarding privacy and preliminary information."
One might question whether the city properly equates drone fight data, exempt from the open records law pursuant to KRS 61.878(1)(i) and (j), to:
"(i) Preliminary drafts, notes, correspondence with private individuals, other than correspondence which is intended to give notice of final action of a public agency;
"( j) Preliminary recommendations, and preliminary memoranda in which opinions are expressed or policies formulated or recommended."
https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=54126
Given the rule of strict statutory construction which governs the exceptions to the open records law, it's apparent that the city is on shaky ground.
https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=23058
It's equally apparent that the city failed to weigh the competing public interest in ensuring that the city is adhering to policies governing the use of drones surveillance -- and that it does does not abuse the surveillance -- against the unspecified privacy interest it asserts under KRS 61.878(1)(a), the privacy exception.
Wood identifies four police departments across the United States that publicize in some form or fashion law enforcement drone data.
Why, then, LMPD's reticence?
Wood quotes ACLU's litigation director, Corey Shapiro, who observes:
"There are obviously concerns around surveillance and privacy and the tension between safeguarding the public and making sure people are free from inappropriate government surveillance.
"One way to [address these concerns] is to have transparency about how these programs are operating."
Let's hope LMPD, and Louisville Metro, don't dig in their heels on the legality of the redactions made to drone flight data in responding to the Courier's open records request. They are, as noted, on shaky legal ground.
Will LMPD and Louisville Metro ever learn to look before they "launch?" Proactively addressing anticipated open records and transparency problems by developing legally defensible policies before escalating the use of drone surveillance -- and Wood is once again forced to expose the problems -- seems a far more prudent course then the course it is currently on.
