Request By:
Ms. Jean Hatzell, Circuit Clerk
Bullitt Circuit and District Court
P.O. Box 275
Shepherdsville, Kentucky 40165
Opinion
Opinion By: David L. Armstrong, Attorney General; By: Cicely D. Jaracz, Assistant Attorney General
Ms. Ernestine Neathery has appealed to the Attorney General pursuant to KRS 61.880 your denial of her request to inspect certain records in your custody. Specifically, Ms. Neathery requested to inspect the court records dating back five years pertaining to traffic violations for driving under the influence (DUI).
Your response indicated that, although the requested records are public records open to public inspection during office hours, your office space and personnel is limited. Apparently the only space you have available for inspection of court records is the countertop in the District Court Office where all District Court work is done. Additionally you state that Ms. Neathery would need assistance to go over the records (approximately 10,000 cases) and you do not have sufficient personnel to leave their assigned duties for this activity.
OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
It is the opinion of the Attorney General that under the Open Records law Ms. Neathery should be allowed to inspect the court records relating to DUI traffic violations.
Records in the custody of the Court clerk are public records as defined by the Open Records law, KRS 61.870(1), (2). The clerk is required by KRS 61.872 to provide suitable facilities for inspection of public records. If the records are in active use, in storage, or not otherwise available, the clerk is required to immediately notify the requestor of a date, time, and place for inspection. This designated time is not to exceed three days from the date of the request, unless a detailed reason is given for the delay which should include the place, time, and earliest date on which the records will be available. KRS 61.872(4).
KRS 61.872(5) does provide that the clerk may refuse inspection if repeated requests are intended to disrupt the essential functions of the office, or if the request places an unreasonable burden in producing voluminous public records. Refusal must be sustained by clear and convincing evidence.
It is our opinion that no such evidence exists herein. Ms. Neathery indicates that she has only made two requests for inspection. The first was an oral request on July 10, 1984, and the second a written request on July 11, 1984. These requests are not indicative of repeated requests aimed at office disruption. Additionally, although 10,000 cases are certainly "voluminous, " Ms. Neathery indicates that she is willing to inspect a few at a time. This request is not indicative of an "unreasonable burden" on the office.
Therefore, it is the opinion of the Attorney General that Ms. Neathery should be provided facilities to inspect the requested records, pursuant to KRS 61.872.
As directed by statute, a copy of this opinion is being sent to the requestor. Should you decide not to comply with this opinion, you may initiate further proceedings pursuant to KRS 61.880(5).