The Lexington Herald-Leader reports on last week's Court of Appeals' opinion returning an open records case, Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government v Maharrey, to the Fayette Circuit Court.

LFUCG asked the appellate court to reverse the Fayette Circuit Court's June 2018 ruling that the Lexington Police Department failed to prove that it properly denied Mike Maharrey's July 2017 request. Maharrey requested purchase orders, vendor contracts, training manuals, and policies for surveillance technologies in use by the city.

One minor clarification to the Herald-Leader article. The attorney general did not "order[ ] the city to turn over all of the documents related to security cameras" in September 2017.

The attorney general's statutory authority is confined to issuing a "written decision stating whether the agency violated provisions of" the open records law. He does not have the authority to "order" records to be turned over.

If the attorney general's written decision is not appealed within 30 days, it has "the force and effect of law" and can be enforced by the requester in circuit court. The attorney general has no enforcement powers and is not a party to the circuit court enforcement proceedings.

If an agency believes the attorney general's written decision is erroneous, it must appeal within 30 days. If the agency disagrees but does not appeal, the decision is legally binding on it.

Only a court can order disclosure and impose penalties and attorneys' fees.

LFUCG appealed the Fayette Circuit Court's opinion affirming the attorney general's written decision. The court, not the attorney general, directed disclosure of the records Maharrey requested.

More importantly, the Court of Appeals did *not* find that the records were exempt from public inspection. The court returned the case to the Fayette Circuit Court for a hearing on LFUCG's argument that disclosure of the records would compromise the effectiveness of the surveillance technologies as well as their use as an investigative tool.

The ACLU, which represents Maharrey in the case, took the appellate court's opinion in stride, expressing confidence that "a court review of the documents. . . will demonstrate that the city's claim that the information represents a threat to the police and public safety is unfounded."

Maharrey himself expressed the belief that demanding accountability and oversight through the open records law "is the first step toward limiting the unchecked use of surveillance technologies that violate basic privacy rights. . . . "

As we stated last week, this is not a defeat for the open records law. We trust, instead, that it is merely a temporary setback.