Request By:
Mr. David Williams
Chief of Police
City of Newport
City Hall
Newport, Kentucky 41071
Opinion
Opinion By: David L. Armstrong, Attorney General;Thomas R. Emerson, Assistant Attorney General
James E. Lang has appealed to the Attorney General pursuant to KRS 61.880 your denial of his request to inspect various documents. While Mr. Lang's list of documents to be inspected was lengthy there were only three items he requested to inspect which your office refused to permit him to inspect. As set forth in Mr. Lang's letter those items are as follows: copies of the arresting officer's and investigating officer's notes and reports, cases 84-CR-130, 131, 132, 133, 134; copies of any and all reports, information, materials, photos which the department has on file which pertain to him but not specified above; copies of any and all materials relevant to but not limited to the above request.
This Office has not received from your office nor been furnished by Mr. Lang a copy of your letter denying in part his request to inspect public documents. We, therefore, do not know what reasons were advanced in support of your determination to deny the request to inspect the records in question. Your office should be aware of the provisions of KRS 61.880(2) providing in part that a copy of the written response denying inspection of a public record shall be forwarded immediately by the public agency to the Attorney General.
OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Among the public records which are excluded from the application of the Open Records Act (KRS 61.870 to KRS 61.884) and subject to inspection only upon an order of a court of competent jurisdiction are those dealt with in KRS 61.878(g) and (h):
"(g) Preliminary drafts, notes, correspondence with private individuals, other than correspondence which is intended to give notice of final action of a public agency;
"(h) Preliminary recommendations, and preliminary memoranda in which opinions are expressed or policies formulated or recommended;"
In OAG 85-77, a copy of which is enclosed, we said that the denial of the request to inspect the investigative report of a police officer which contained that officer's observations and recommendations was proper so long as that specific report was not incorporated into the public agency's final report of the matter. Thus, a preliminary memorandum is normally excluded from the public inspection provisions of the Open Records Act.
In OAG 84-163, a copy of which is enclosed, we said that we have consistently held that intraoffice memoranda are exempt from public inspection, especially where the memoranda are preliminary (not evidence of final agency action) and contain opinions of the writers.
This Office concluded in OAG 85-58, copy enclosed, that the worknotes of an occupational safety and health compliance officer, compiled in the ordinary course oa an investigation of a worksite and containing preliminary drafts of possible citations and correspondence with private persons which are not intended to give notice of final action, are preliminary documents. Furthermore, work papers and intraoffice memoranda are exempt from public inspection.
In regard to general requests for public records to public agencies, we said in OAG 83-386, copy enclosed, that, "Blanket requests for information on a particular subject without specifying certain documents need not be honored. " Thus a blanket request to inspect all materials and records need not be honored. See also OAG 76-375, copy enclosed.
In conclusion, it is the opinion of the Attorney General that your denial of the request to inspect a police officer's notes and reports was proper under KRS 61.878(1)(g) and (h) as such documents are preliminary documents containing the person's notes and observations. Such material is only subject to public inspection (in the absence of a court order) if it constitutes notice of final action of the public agency or is incorporated into the public agency's final report or final decision on the matter. Furthermore, your denial of the requests to inspect all reports and materials and all relevant materials was proper as blanket requests for information on a particular subject without specifying what documents are desired need not be honored.
As required by statute, a copy of this opinion is being sent to the requesting party who has the right to challenge it in circuit court pursuant to KRS 61.880(5).