Skip to main content

Request By:

Mr. Randall J. Smith
Grant County Coroner
P.O. Box 152
Dry Ridge, Kentucky 41035

Opinion

Opinion By: David L. Armstrong, Attorney General; By: Charles W. Runyan, Assistant Deputy Attorney General

You request our opinion relative to the county budget in relation to the operations of your office.

The questions read:

"1. Number of deputy coroners (2 requested) I may have for Grant County with a population of 13,000 plus, and the minimum compensation due each deputy that have met the state training requirements while serving as deputy?

"2. Does the county have to provide two way radio equipment for the coroner and deputies, if in my opinion radios are a necessity for personal safety and job performance?

"3. Does the county have to purchase none, some, or all of the supplies listed under item 6 on pages 5 and 6 of the proposed budget?

"4. Does the county have to reimburse the coroner and deputies for travel and training expenses related to coroner duties, and at what rate?

"5. Does the county have to provide an area - specifically where, for coroner case report storage, including current and finished cases which may include evidence from the death scene, autopsy reports, photographs? For what length of time must these items be retained? Who may have access to these reports and evidence? If these reports, evidence, photos, etc. do not have to be retained how, and who shall dispose of them?"

In answer to Question No. 1, the fiscal court has the authority to designate the number of deputies for your office. See KRS 64.530. That statute was amended by S.B. 8, 1984 session, to provide that the number of deputies may be adjusted upward or downward during your term of office upon your written request for such adjustment. See Funk v. Milliken, Ky., 317 S.W.2d 499 (1958); and KRS 72.010. It is up to you as coroner to point out to and document for the fiscal court your actual need for deputies, based upon your normal case load (coroner's cases), county population, and related factors. There is no special formula. In addition, the specific compensation of your deputies will be set by fiscal court, subject to in-term adjustment requested in writing by you, based upon your presentation of data supporting particular salary ranges. The important point is that the fiscal court is required to pay all reasonable expenses incurred by the coroner in carrying out his statutory duties. See KRS 72.415. The salary fixation may include the factors of the deputy's ability and state of training, case load, and quality of performance.

Concerning Question No. 2, we can find no express statute relating to two-way radio equipment. However, when considering that often the coroner may be faced with a homicide situation and a murderer at the scene of the crime, a two-way radio would enable the coroner to seek any necessary help from the state police, city police, or sheriff's office. Otherwise, he could be a sitting duck. On the face of it, such an expense would seem to be a "reasonable expense", as envisioned in KRS 72.415, especially since the equipment would be calculated to promote the personal safety and job performance of the coroner.

As for Question No. 3, it relates to steel tape measures, cameras, film, tape recorders, batteries, body bags, death scene preservation tape, gloves, cardiac needles, disinfectant, etc. As you suggest, the present statutes lay down no precise standards or guidelines as to the necessity for procuring such supplies. As it stands, it is up to each coroner to demonstrate and document, where possible, the actual need for such supplies, such that they would logically constitute "reasonable expenses" , as mentioned in KRS 72.415. It would appear that the supplies you mention are a reasonable necessity in the operation of the coroner's office.

In response to Question No. 4, we think that necessary travel and training expenses directly pertaining to the coroner's statutory functions would meet the term "reasonable expenses. " The statutes spell out no specific rate for travel. Eighteen cents per mile would be a fair rate (state rate for employees).

Concerning, under Question No. 5, the responsibility for providing storage space for case reports, evidence from death scenes, photographs, autopsy reports, it is our view that the fiscal court should provide sufficient space to house such items for the period of usefulness to the coroner in carrying out his work. We find no statute expressly dealing with the retention time or final disposal. In the absence of a court order, or the applicable storage of such records by State Archives, the coroner should use his good judgment in disposing of items no longer needed. KRS 171.410, 171.420, 171.450, and 171.530. Your records are public records, as defined in KRS 61.870(1) and (2). See KRS 61.872 and 61.878 (right of inspection only on order of a court) relating to the right of inspection of public records. Certain records of law enforcement agencies, unless otherwise exempted in KRS 61.870 to 61.884, are exempt from inspection until after enforcement action is completed or a decision is made to take no action. See KRS 61.878(1)(f). You should consult with State Archives as to their records retention policies.

Unfortunately, the coroners of Kentucky will have to labor with this general concept expressed in KRS 72.415, i.e., "reasonable expenses" , until such time as the General Assembly establishes more definite criteria and standards as to such coroner's expenses. That concept should embrace at least the purpose of the coroner (to aid in law enforcement), the specific nature of his work, difficulties encountered, and results obtained. See City of Ashland v. Miller, Ky., 283 S.W.2d 195 (1955), in which the court stated that the function of the coroner is to aid in the administration of criminal justice by inquiring into the circumstances of violent or suspicious deaths; and the object of an inquest is to obtain information as to whether death was caused by some criminal act. See also Swank v. Reherd, 181 Va. 943, 27 S.E.2d 191 (1943) 193; and City of Holland v. Green, 25 Mich. App. 565, 181 N.W.2d 821 (1970) 824.

Disclaimer:
The Sunshine Law Library is not exhaustive and may contain errors from source documents or the import process. Nothing on this website should be taken as legal advice. It is always best to consult with primary sources and appropriate counsel before taking any action.
Type:
Open Records Decision
Lexis Citation:
1984 Ky. AG LEXIS 143
Neighbors

Support Our Work

The Coalition needs your help in safeguarding Kentuckian's right to know about their government.