Annotations for Statute

Law enforcement exemption in KRS 61.878(1)(h) is appropriately invoked only when an agency can articulate a factual basis for applying the exemption when, because of a record’s content, the record’s release poses a concrete risk of harm to the agency in a prospective action, which must be something more than a hypothetical or speculative concern. City of Fort Thomas v. Cincinnati Enquirer, 406 S.W.3d 842, 2013 Ky. LEXIS 375 (Ky. 2013).

Litigation exception found in Open Records Act did not apply to disclosure of the specifics of settlement agreements made between local police department and litigants suing department, since such settlements were merely negotiated by counsel and not in closed meetings. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Gov't v. Lexington Herald-Leader Co., 941 S.W.2d 469, 1997 Ky. LEXIS 38 (Ky. 1997).

Lower courts properly found that the witnesses, victims, and uncharged suspects referred to in the police department’s arrest and incident reports, adults and juveniles alike, had privacy interests in addresses, phone numbers, social security numbers, and driver’s license numbers that implicated KRS 61.878(1)(a) given that citizens had more than a de minimus interest in the confidentiality of such information. Ky. New Era v. City of Hopkinsville, 415 S.W.3d 76, 2013 Ky. LEXIS 644 (Ky. 2013).

Names of donors to a public university’s foundation who had not requested anonymity were subject to the disclosure requirement of KRS 61.871, as the foundation was a public entity under KRS 61.870, and the donors had no reasonable expectation of privacy. Cape Pub'ns, Inc. v. Univ. of Louisville Found., Inc., 260 S.W.3d 818, 2008 Ky. LEXIS 176 (Ky. 2008).

Newspaper’s unsupported speculation that the victims, witnesses, and uncharged suspects referred to in the police department’s arrest and incident reports may have shed light on police misconduct did not outweigh those citizens’  substantial privacy interests. Ky. New Era v. City of Hopkinsville, 415 S.W.3d 76, 2013 Ky. LEXIS 644 (Ky. 2013).

Notwithstanding that KRS 61.884 allows any person to have access to any public record relating to him or in which he is mentioned by name, a citizen was not entitled to a copy of a tape recording of a 911 call reporting that the citizen had threatened to kill his own wife and other members of his family, as the disclosure of such recording would have constituted a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy of the 911 caller in violation of this section. Bowling v. Brandenburg, 37 S.W.3d 785, 2000 Ky. App. LEXIS 22 (Ky. Ct. App. 2000).

Once final disciplinary action is taken by the Board of Medical Licensure, any complaint, report, memorandum, or letter made part of the record in such action is not within the exceptions to the Open Records Act found in subdivisions (1)(g) and (1)(h) of this section and must therefore be made available to the public. Kentucky State Bd. of Medical Licensure v. Courier-Journal & Louisville Times Co., 663 S.W.2d 953, 1983 Ky. App. LEXIS 327 (Ky. Ct. App. 1983).

Open Records Act did not authorize court to order standardized examination to be available for viewing by parents; the discretion given to courts under that act is not unbridled, and in the case of an examination, the individual’s interest must be balanced against the interest of the state in protecting the integrity of the examination. Triplett v. Livingston County Bd. of Educ., 967 S.W.2d 25, 1997 Ky. App. LEXIS 74 (Ky. Ct. App. 1997), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1104, 119 S. Ct. 870, 142 L. Ed. 2d 771, 1999 U.S. LEXIS 599 (U.S. 1999).

Owner of a company did not have standing to invoke the exemption contained in subsection (1)(h), because he was not among the class of persons that exemption was intended to protect; the exemption is addressed to county and Commonwealth attorneys, not private citizens, and is intended to shield prosecutors from disclosures potentially harmful to their informants or their prosecutions and from the cost, inconvenience, and disruption that compliance would visit upon their offices. Lawson v. Office of the AG, 415 S.W.3d 59, 2013 Ky. LEXIS 640 (Ky. 2013).

Proffer given to the Kentucky Office of the Attorney General relating to a company’s business practices was not exempt from disclosure under KRS 61.878(1)(a) because disclosure did not amount to a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy; the proffer was not inherently personal. Moreover, there was a diminished expectation of privacy in the information that was given since it was known that it could have been used in future civil or criminal litigation. Lawson v. Office of the Atty., 2012 Ky. App. LEXIS 44 (Ky. Ct. App. Mar. 2, 2012), aff'd, 415 S.W.3d 59, 2013 Ky. LEXIS 640 (Ky. 2013).

Proffer given to the Kentucky Office of the Attorney General relating to a company’s business practices was not exempt from disclosure under KRS 61.878(1)(h) because there was no showing that the disclosure would have harmed the agency. Lawson v. Office of the Atty., 2012 Ky. App. LEXIS 44 (Ky. Ct. App. Mar. 2, 2012), aff'd, 415 S.W.3d 59, 2013 Ky. LEXIS 640 (Ky. 2013).

Prosecution against a manslaughter victim’s wife was incomplete and any law enforcement records exempt under KRS 61.878(1)(h) were not yet subject to disclosure. The wife had three years, from the date of the final judgment, to file a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct her sentence under RCr P. 11.42. Cincinnati Enquirer v. City of Fort Thomas, 2011 Ky. App. LEXIS 202 (Ky. Ct. App. Oct. 21, 2011).

Records that a fired program coordinator requested from an urban county government were privileged as information obtained during an investigation conducted by a law firm that was acting as the urban government’s attorney; therefore, the information was not discoverable. Meriwether v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Gov't, 2002 Ky. App. LEXIS 1 (Ky. Ct. App. Jan. 4, 2002).

Since corporation sought investment tax credits through Kentucky Industry Revitalization Authority (KIRA) which was established by and administered through KRS Chapter 154 and the information submitted by corporation to KIRA was done in conjunction with said application for the tax credits and since by amending the Open Records Act, specifically KRS 61.878 (1)(c)(2)(b), to include documents submitted pursuant to KRS Chapter 154, it is evident that the Legislature sought to protect those companies which participate in the revitalization and development of industry in Kentucky, such documents were exempt from disclosure. Hoy v. Kentucky Indus. Revitalization Auth., 907 S.W.2d 766, 1995 Ky. LEXIS 125 (Ky. 1995).

Since corporation sought investment tax credits through Kentucky Industry Revitalization Authority (KIRA) which was established by and administered through KRS Chapter 154 and the information submitted by corporation to KIRA was done in conjunction with said application for the tax credits and since by amending the Open Records Act, specifically KRS 61.878(1)(C)2.b., to include documents submitted pursuant to KRS Chapter 154, it is evident that the Legislature sought to protect those companies which participate in the revitalization and development of industry in Kentucky, such documents were exempt from disclosure. Hoy v. Kentucky Indus. Revitalization Auth., 907 S.W.2d 766, 1995 Ky. LEXIS 125 (Ky. 1995).

Since emails between a city mayor and the city council members were preliminary discussions concerning what course of action to take with respect to a financial controversy regarding a local convention center, they were within the exemption from disclosure of the Open Records Act pursuant to KRS 61.878(1), and a city and the mayor were not liable for willfully withholding records under KRS 61.882(5). Baker v. Jones, 199 S.W.3d 749, 2006 Ky. App. LEXIS 12 (Ky. Ct. App. 2006).

Since the privacy interests in not being identified by personal information was almost always substantial and the public interest in disclosure rarely so, the city’s categorical redaction of such information was a reasonable application of KRS 61.878(1)(a). Ky. New Era v. City of Hopkinsville, 415 S.W.3d 76, 2013 Ky. LEXIS 644 (Ky. 2013).

Some details of the Open Records Act present interferences inconsistent with the orderly conduct of court business, to wit, the requirement that courts adopt and post rules and regulations, that they conform to the procedure set forth in KRS 61.880, and that as to the accessibility of their records they adhere to the list of exceptions stated in this section, and such requirements will not be accepted. Ex parte Farley, 570 S.W.2d 617, 1978 Ky. LEXIS 390 (Ky. 1978).

Standing to assert the exemptions of the Kentucky Open Records Act is limited to those persons or entities the particular exemption was meant to protect; the privacy exemption was clearly intended to protect individuals from unwarranted disclosures of personal information lodged, for whatever reason, in the government’s files. Lawson v. Office of the AG, 415 S.W.3d 59, 2013 Ky. LEXIS 640 (Ky. 2013).

State university’s response to inquiry by collegiate athletic association into rules violation was not exempt from disclosure under Open Records Act exemption for public records. It is clear that the university is a “public agency” and the entire response submitted by the university to the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) constitutes a public record. Where the university spent over $400,000.00 for the response and the public has a legitimate interest in its contents, the response is not exempt. Furthermore, the contents of the response are a matter of public interest and release would not constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. University of Kentucky v. Courier-Journal & Louisville Times Co., 830 S.W.2d 373, 1992 Ky. LEXIS 55 (Ky. 1992).