Request By:
Mr. Ben Harney
Chief of Police
Frankfort Police Department
Second Street
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
Opinion
Opinion By: Steven L. Beshear, Attorney General; By: Carl Miller, Assistant Attorney General
Mr. Jerry T. Hughes, P.D.Q. Market #5, 502 Holmes Street, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601, has appealed to the Attorney General under KRS 61.880 your denial of inspection of certain public records in your custody. The records are described as "identifiable descriptions and notations of arrest, detentions, indictments, information or other formal criminal charges and any disposition arising therefrom to include sentencing, correctional supervision and release and/or all other information the Frankfort Police Department may have compiled on the above referenced individual." The referenced individual is described as "Connie Dudley and/or Ms. Steven Dudley and/or Connie Bingham." Mr. Hughes states that your letter denying inspection relied on KRS 61.878(1)(a) ". . . invasion of personal privacy. "
Under KRS 61.878(2) the Attorney General is required to issue an opinion as to whether the request to inspect records was properly denied.
OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
It is the opinion of the Attorney General that inspection of the requested records cannot be denied on the grounds of "personal privacy. " KRS 17.150(4) provides, in part, as follows:
"Centralized criminal history records are not subject to public inspection. . . . Nothing in this subsection shall apply to documents maintained by criminal justice agencies which are the source of information collected by the Department of Justice."
Local law enforcement agencies are required to make available for public inspection arrest records of any person, subject to the exceptions stated in KRS 17.150(2), which reads as follows:
"Intelligence and investigative reports maintained by criminal justice agencies are subject to public inspection provided prosecution is completed or a determination not to prosecute has been made. However, portions of such records may be withheld from inspection if such inspection would disclose:
(a) the name or identity of any confidential informant or information which may lead to the identity of any confidential informant;
(b) information of a personal nature the disclosure of which will not tend to advance a wholesome public interest or legitimate private interest;
(c) information which may endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel; or
(d) information contained in such records to be used in a prospective law enforcement action."
A person does not have any privacy interest in local police records pertaining to him. OAG 76-511.
KRS 17.150(3) provides:
"When a demand for the inspection of such records is refused by the custodian of the record, the burden shall be upon the custodian to justify the refusal of inspection with specificity. Exemptions provided by this section shall not be used by the custodian of the records to delay or impede the exercise of rights granted by this section."
You have the right to challenge this opinion by an action in the circuit court within 30 days. KRS 61.880(5). As directed by statute, we are sending a copy of this opinion to the requester.