This op-ed shocks the conscience of an open records veteran who thought she had seen it all.

An open records requester in Alabama, Tabitha Isner, found herself the subject of a lawsuit filed by Alabama prison officials after she requested records relating to the state's death penalty protocol.

And the events that followed were even more outrageous. Officials probed into her personal beliefs, her political beliefs, her social media habits, her charitable donations, her work history, even her adopted child, in the course of a two hour deposition taken in the case.

Alabama's law, it seems, authorizes public agencies to require requesters to identify their purpose and the intended use of the records they seek.

Or at least this is how the Alabama Supreme Court has interpreted the state's public records law since 1991. In Alabama, public agencies may ask requesters why they want records "so long as the question is not intended to dissuade people from seeking the records and is not used in the ordinary course as a means to prevent people from having access to such record."

Was Isner dissuaded? She has stated that she is uncertain if she would make the request again. But the experience taught her that Alabama's public records law is "not functioning" and that public officials "will intimidate and use all sorts of inappropriate tactics to discourage requests and transparency."

In May, 2019, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ordered disclosure of the Alabama death penalty protocol.

https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/2019/03/appeals-court-alabama-must-r…

On June 25, the US Supreme Court Circuit unsealed the Alabama death penalty protocol, which had been filed under seal at Alabama's insistence, in a pending case. The Court granted a petition to unseal the protocols filed by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and National Public Radio.

https://www.facebook.com/419650175248377/posts/470904813456246?s=184659…

Isner's ordeal pre-dates the Supreme Court's June 25 ruling.

Again and again, we preach the virtue of an open records law—like Kentucky's—which recognizes that "All public records shall be open for inspection by any person."

https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=48750

We are thankful for a judiciary which has declared that the right of access to public records "does not turn on the purpose for which the request is made or the identity of the person making the request. We think the legislature clearly intended to grant any member of the public as much right of access to information as the next."

https://law.justia.com/cases/kentucky/court-of-appeals/1994/93-ca-00185…

(This is true even with respect to commercial requesters. They may be required to certify their intended commercial purpose and to pay a higher —but still reasonable — fee for copies based on factors that include staff time. But they have an equal right of access to nonexempt public records as a noncommercial requester.)

We must defend against any intrusions into this bedrock principle of open government law in Kentucky.