This is a tough one.

Time, and other obligations, prevent me from reviewing this Fayette Circuit Court opinion reversing the Kentucky Attorney General's 2017 open records decision in the underlying appeal (following two and a half years of convoluted legal proceedings).

https://cdn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-21/92399059_269011564101130_8058419371…

That will come soon.

For now, it is enough to read today's post from the person, Mike Maharrey, who was hauled into this legal battle by a public agency, Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, with a long history of disdain for open governments laws.

(I can already hear the outraged protestations emanating from the Urban County Government Center).

LFUCG denied Mike access to purchase orders, federal grant applications, purchase receipts, written policies (including data sharing and retention), training manuals, contracts with outside vendors, memorandums of understanding with any federal law enforcement agency relating to the use or the sharing of surveillance data and information, and data sharing agreements with the Kentucky State Police for '*all of the listed surveillance technologies owned or used*' by the Lexington Police Department.

Not surveillance data or actual footage itself, mind you, but tangential purchase records, manuals, policies, and data sharing agreements.

Once the dispute entered the courts, he was very ably represented by the ACLU and attorneys Clay Barkley and Julia Taylor.

He prevailed in his original appeal to the Kentucky Attorney General as well as the Fayette Circuit Court but lost when the Court of Appeals remanded the records access dispute back down to the Fayette Circuit Court.

https://ag.ky.gov/Priorities/Government-Transparency/orom/2017/17ORD179…

Sometime the process works. Sometimes it doesn't.

Mike's frustration, his disappointment, and his understandable cynicism speaks for itself.

* * * * * *

"Thoughts and feelings on my lawsuit. Long post ahead.

"On Oct. 2, 2017, I was sitting in my living room watching TV with my wife when there was a knock at the door. I opened the door and stood face-to-face with a uniformed Fayette County constable. He handed me some papers and asked me to sign. I'd been served.

"Thus began a two-and-a-half-year legal saga.

"It appears it has finally come to an end. Unfortunately, not in the way I'd hoped.

"All of this started when I filed an open records request to find out what kind of surveillance equipment the city of Lexington, Kentucky owned. As it turns out, the city has 29 super-secret "mobile surveillance" cameras. They don't want us to know what kind of cameras they are, how they are used, what policies guide their use or anything at all about them. When the city refused to provide any documents on the cameras, I appealed to the Kentucky Office of the Attorney General. It found in my favor and ordered the release of the documents. Instead, the city sued me to keep the cameras secret. Believe it or not, that's the process in Kentucky. In order to challenge an AG decision in an open records case, you have to sue the other party.

"At its core, this was a bullying tactic. The city thought I would just go away. It even asked the court to make me pay the city's court costs in the initial suit. This isn't even legal under the open records law. But I didn't go away. Fortunately, I had the connections to get legal help. The ACLU of Kentucky took the case. I can't thank them enough for the work they did. They were absolutely fantastic.

"To boil it all down, the city claimed releasing the records was an "undue burden." They claimed that some of the cameras were used for undercover work and that revealing information about them would pose a risk to "officer safety." If you've never dealt with police in a legal setting officer safety is a catch-phrase often invoked to keep information out of the public eye. I know enough to know this is bullshit in this case.

"We started out in Fayette Circuit Court. The judge found in my favor and ordered the release of the documents. The city went back to that judge and asked for reconsideration. He found in my favor again. By this point, the city has had three separate rulings ordering the release of the documents. But not to be deterred the city appealed to the State Court of Appeals. That three-judge panel felt that the district judge should have considered some additional information and remanded the case back to the circuit court. For the city, the fourth time was a charm. Lexington finally found a judge willing to keep the super-secret cameras super-secret. From what I hear, this particular judge tends to defer to cops and takes a rather narrow view of government transparency, so the ruling wasn't a surprise.

"So, I think that's it. We could appeal, but there is some risk involved. The appellate court ruling did establish that some fact-finding is necessary before the Circuit Court anytime a public agency claims "unreasonable burden." It means that courts can't simply just take government agents at their word. We don't want to risk undoing that.

"Don't worry. I still have an ace up my sleeve. That we'll be revealed in the next week or so.

"Honestly, right now I'm just angry and disappointed. I'm angry at the whole process. I'm angry at the lack of transparency. I'm angry that government can do as it pleases and we don't even get to know about it. And I'm disappointed that I couldn't win. I wanted so badly to be able to stick this back in their faces.

"The arrogance and condescension I've endured from city officials over the last two-plus years is a tough pill to swallow. And honestly, I kind of feel like I've let everybody down. People have been so wonderfully supportive. I wanted to win. Not just for me, but for all of the people who have cheered me on and all the folks who have ever been bullied by government agencies.

"I was probably naïve to think I could win. The government can take my money and then beat me into the ground with it. And if that doesn't work, they have the guns.

"One thing that should be abundantly clear – anybody who says, "We are the government," is full of horseshit. If that were true, how is it that I can hide what I'm doing from myself, take my own money and then sue myself if I try to find out what I'm doing? The whole thing is nonsensical."