The Kentucky Attorney General issued the following open records decisions last week:
1. 23-ORD-054 (In re: Barbara Walden/City of Lexington)
Summary: The City of Lexington did not violate the Open Records Act when it withheld its Consent Decree Schedule Modification Request that was exempt from disclosure under KRS 61.878(1)(j).
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2023-OROM/2023/23-ORD-054.pdf
2. 23-ORD-055 (In re: Micheal Whitehead/Louisville Metro Police Department)
Summary: The Louisville Metro Police Department violated the Open Records Act when it did not respond to a request to inspect records. The Department did not violate the Act when it denied a request seeking information rather than public records.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2023-OROM/2023/23-ORD-055.pdf
3. 23-ORD-056 (In re: Sean Southard/Office of the Governor)
Summary: The Office of the Governor did not violate the Open Records Act when it denied a request for records because some portions are exempt under KRS 61.878(1)(i) and (j) and the other portions are exempt under KRE 503 and the attorney work-product doctrine.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2023-OROM/2023/23-ORD-056.pdf
4. 23-ORD-057 (In re: Phillip Hamm/McCracken County Sheriff’s Office)
Summary: The McCracken County Sheriff’s Office did not violate the Open Records Act when it denied a request to inspect in-person an employee’s privately-owned cellphone. However, to the extent photographs stored on the privately-owned cellphone were “used” for an official government purpose, such photographs are “public records” subject to inspection. The Sheriff’s Office also did not violate the Act when it denied a request for records that do not exist.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2023-OROM/2023/23-ORD-057.pdf
5. 23-ORD-058 (In re: Jimmy Hall/Bowling Green Police Department)
Summary: The Bowling Green Police Department violated the Open Records Act when it failed to respond to a request within five business days of receiving it. However, the Department did not violate the Act when it denied a request for records that do not exist within its possession.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2023-OROM/2023/23-ORD-058.pdf
6. 23-ORD-059 (In re: Chad Heath/Kentucky Transportation Cabinet)
Summary: The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet did not violate the Open Records Act when it did not respond to a request to inspect records that was not submitted to the email address of its official records custodian, which is posted on the Cabinet’s website.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2023-OROM/2023/23-ORD-059.pdf
7. 23-ORD-060 (In re: Joshua Brown/Richmond Police Department)
Summary: The Richmond Police Department did not violate the Open Records Act when it could not provide records that do not exist within its custody or control.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2023-OROM/2023/23-ORD-060.pdf
8. 23-ORD-061 (In re: Donald R. Phillips/Office of the Secretary of State)
Summary: The Office of the Secretary of State did not violate the Open Records Act when it responded to a request under the Act within five business days of receiving it.
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2023-OROM/2023/23-ORD-061.pdf
