The Office of the Kentucky Attorney General issued these Opinions and Open Records/Open Meetings Decisions last week. The summaries are provided here. To read the full text in each case, go to: https://ag.ky.gov/orom/Pages/2019-OROM.aspx

1. 19-ORD-216 (Fayette County)

Lexington Police Department violated the Open Records Act to the extent that body-worn camera footage containing a suspect not charged with a crime could be provided in redacted form, where public interest did not overcome individual's heightened privacy interest under KRS 61.878(1)(a). Attorney was not entitled to copy of video under KRS 61.169 where footage did not contain incident in which his client was directly involved.

2. 19-ORD-217 (Jefferson County)

Louisville Metro Police Department did not violate the Open Records Act in withholding significant portions of the requested witness interview transcripts because the final decision maker, the Chief, did not review those records in reaching his determination regarding the subject Professional Standards Unit investigation. Those records consequently remained preliminary and LMPD properly denied access pursuant to KRS 61.878(1)(i) and (j).

3. 19-ORD-218 (Graves County)

Office of the Graves County Judge/Executive ultimately discharged its duty under the Act by providing the requester with all existing responsive documents, and explaining the lack of additional documents when appropriate. The Judge/Executive cannot provide nonexistent records for inspection or copying, nor is he required to "prove a negative" in order to refute an unsubstantiated claim that additional records exist under governing legal authority. Disputes relating to discrepancies between the records provided to requester and those being sought are not justiciable in this forum. The Judge/Executive's initial response was deficient in failing to affirmatively indicate that certain records do not currently exist in his possession or custody.

4. 19-ORD-219 (Fayette County)

New Vista appropriately denied a request for records because it is not a public agency subject to the Open Records Act.

5. 19-ORD-220 (Gallatin County)

Glencoe Board of Adjustment ("Board") violated the Open Records Act ("Act") by failing to timely produce responsive records, as required by KRS 61.880(1), and by failing to properly invoke KRS 61.872(5). The Board failed to meet its burden of proof and provide a legitimate detailed explanation of the cause for its delay, and therefore subverted the intent of the Act within the meaning of KRS 61.880(4).

6. 19-ORD-221 (Christian County)

Hopkinsville Police Department violated KRS 61.880(1) by failing to issue a timely written response, and by failing to include a statement of the specific statutory exception authorizing the withholding of responsive accident reports. HPD properly withheld copies of accident reports, pursuant to KRS 189.635(5), incorporated into the Act by operation of KRS 61.878(1)(l), because the requesters were not parties authorized to receive copies. HPD had no duty under KRS 61.878(4) to redact accident reports because KRS 189.635(5) provides a blanket exemption to disclosure of protected records.

7. 19-ORD-222 (Grant County)

Grant County Detention Center violated the Open Records Act in failing to either comply with all requirements of KRS 61.880(1) upon receipt of request, or properly invoke KRS 61.872(5) by citing that provision and providing a legitimate detailed explanation of the cause for delay and the specific date when existing nonexempt records, if any, would be available. GCDC failed to provide the specific factual justification required to successfully invoke KRS 61.878(1)(h) as construed in governing case law. Although its response lacked adequate specificity under KRS 61.880(1) and 61.880(2)(c), on appeal GCDC properly denied access to records protected under the Prison Rape Elimination Act; 18-ORD-206 is controlling on this issue.

8. 19-ORD-223 (Gallatin County)

Gallatin County Airport Board violated the Open Records Act by failing, without explanation, to provide a copy of a consulting contract.

9. 19-ORD-224 (Jefferson County)

Louisville Metro Police Department violated the Open Records Act by failing to make timely dispositions of requests for public records, but did not violate the Act by redacting names, residential address, and birthdates of crime victims pursuant to KRS 61.878(1)(a).

10. 19-ORD-225 (Franklin County)

Education and Workforce Development Cabinet did not violate the Open Records Act in ultimately denying a request for nonexistent records, and the Cabinet is not required to "prove a negative" in order to refute an unsubstantiated claim that responsive documents were created. However, the Cabinet's initial response was untimely and otherwise deficient under KRS 61.880(1) insofar as the Cabinet failed to affirmatively indicate that no documents were created or exist, and explain why; the Cabinet cured this deficiency on appeal.