Request By:
Mr. Ernest R. Vaughn
The Messenger
P.O. Box 529
Madisonville, Kentucky 42431
Opinion
Opinion By: Robert F. Stephens, Attorney General; By: Charles W. Runyan, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
You ask whether the county coroner has the authority to prohibit photography for television and newspaper personnel during the investigation of a death on a public thoroughfare, in a private residence, or on private property.
We assume you refer to a situation in which the coroner is actually exercising his jurisdiction, that is, holding an inquest pursuant to KRS 72.020 or 72.030, and with or without a jury. See KRS 72.050 and 72.060.
The verdict of a coroner or a coroner's jury is merely advisory to law enforcement officials and has no legal effect. 18 Am.Jur.2d, Coroners or Medical Examiners, § 15, p. 529. KRS 72.060 does not require that the testimony taken at the inquest or the verdict be turned over to the grand jury or anyone else, or furnished the accused. Poyner v. Commonwealth, 274 Ky. 813, 120 S.W.2d 649 (1938), 651. The coroner is only required to return the recognizances of the witnesses and the inquest verdict and testimony to the circuit clerk's office. KRS 72.060. We must keep in mind that the principal function of the coroner in the inquest is to aid criminal justice by inquiring into circumstances of violent or suspicious deaths. The object is to obtain information as to whether death was caused by some criminal act. Ashland v. Miller, Ky., 283 S.W.2d 195 (1955).
It is our opinion that, considering the inquest to be a criminal investigatory proceeding and in nature a quasi-judicial proceeding, the open meetings law has no application. See KRS 61.805 et seq.; 18 C.J.S., Coroners, § 14, p. 293; 18 Am.Jur.2d, Coroners or Medical Examiners, § 8, p. 522; and Kennedy v. Justice of the District Court of Dukes County, Mass., 252 N.E.2d 201 (1969), 205. In Kennedy [Mary Jo Kopechne death case], the Massachusetts coroner system is similar to Kentucky's. There the Court ruled that holding an inquest is a quasi-judicial function. Under the Massachusetts law "all persons not required by law to attend may be excluded from the inquest. " The Court pointed out that the coroner has wide discretion in the conduct of an inquest as an investigatory tool. While noting that the Kennedy-Kopechne case had aroused great public interest which in turn had stimulated great efforts by the press, radio, television and other media to provide news coverage, the Court held that all inquests should be closed to the public and news media. The Court said this rule was necessary to protect the integrity, investigatory character, and the effectiveness of inquests. Note also that KRS 61.805(2) expressly excludes quasi-judicial bodies from the application of the open meeting law.
Since the coroner is not required to observe the open meetings law, it follows that the provisions for the attendance and operation of the news media, as mentioned in KRS 61.840, have no application.
However, after the inquest verdict and testimony have been filed in the circuit clerk's office pursuant to KRS 72.060, such record at that point becomes a public record and is subject to the open records law. See KRS 61.870 et seq.