Skip to main content

Request By:

Christopher W. Johnson, Esq.
Legal Counsel
Kentucky State Police
919 Versailles Road
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

Opinion

Opinion By: David L. Armstrong, Attorney General; Thomas R. Emerson, Assistant Attorney General

J. Guthrie True, Esq., has appealed to the Attorney General pursuant to KRS 61.880 your denial of his request to inspect and copy various records in the custody of the State Police.

In a letter to Major Bob Stallins, dated December 4, 1986, Mr. True's client, Mr. Marion D. Campbell, requested access to a variety of documents and records in the custody of the State Police. Included among those records and documents requested were "All Special Investigations East Summaries and Progress Reports made by me from 8-1-85 to 3-14-86."

You replied to that particular request in a letter to Mr. Campbell and Mr. True, dated December 18, 1986. You advised that you would not permit access to the Special Investigations East Summaries and Progress Reports dated August 1, 1985, through March 14, 1986. In support of your decision you cited KRS 61.878(1)(h), KRS 61.878(1)(f), KRS 61.878(1)(j) and KRS 17.150(2).

In a letter delivered to this office on December 22, 1986, Mr. True requested that we review your decision not to provide access to the records and documents in question. He maintains that the material is needed in connection with an upcoming trial involving his client.

The undersigned Assistant Attorney General talked with you in his office on December 23, 1986. The records and documents in question consist of 32 weekly status reports from former state police officer Marion D. Campbell to other officials in the State Police summarizing what a particular section or division had done that particular week. While I did not read every line of every report, I read enough of the material to determine that the reports are basically intra office memoranda whereby a state police officer is setting forth his observations, conclusions, recommendations and opinions to other state police officers.

OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Among the public records which may be excluded from public inspection by a public agency in the absence of a court order authorizing inspection are those records described in KRS 61.878(1)(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

City of Louisville v. Courier-Journal, Etc., Ky.App., 637 S.W.2d 658, 659 (1982), the Court said in part as follows:

"It is the opinion of this Court that subsections (g) and (h) quoted above protect the Internal Affairs reports from being made public. Internal Affairs, as was stipulated, has no independent authority to issue a binding decision and serves merely as a fact-finder for the convenience of the Chief and the Deputy Chief of Police.

"Its information is submitted for review to the Chief who alone determines what final action is to be taken. Perforce although at that point the work of Internal Affairs is final as to its own role, it remains preliminary to the Chief's final decision. Of course, if the Chief adopts its notes or recommendations as part of his final action, clearly the preliminary characterization is lost to that extent."

In

Kentucky State Board of Medical Licensure v. Courier Journal, Ky.App., 663 S.W.2d 953 (1983), the court said that if documents such as certain letters, correspondence and reports were merely internal preliminary materials, they would be exempt under the statute and the principles set out in City of Louisville, supra.

In OAG 86-32, copy enclosed, we concluded that a public agency's denial of a request to inspect those documents consisting of preliminary notes (whether handwritten or typed), preliminary drafts of letters, reports and other documents, preliminary memoranda, including intra office memoranda, and other documents not representing final action of the agency, was proper as such materials may be excluded from public inspection pursuant to KRS 61.878(1)(g) and (h).

This office said in OAG 86-26, copy enclosed, that a public agency's denial of a request to inspect and copy documents consisting of notes, intra office memoranda and investigative memoranda and investigative reports, setting forth the opinions, observations and recommendations of agency personnel, which do not represent the agency's final decision on a matter, was proper pursuant to the provisions of KRS 61.878(1)(g) and (h).

In OAG 86-5, copy enclosed, we said that a denial of a request to inspect and copy memoranda from an inspector to his supervisor was proper as the documents constitute intra office memoranda containing preliminary notes and personal observations and do not represent notice of a final action or decision of a public agency.

Mr. Campbell requested copies of documents he had prepared. While KRS 61.884 provides that a person shall have access to documents relating to him or in which he is mentioned, that same statute limits this privilege because it also states that it is subject to the provisions of KRS 61.878. Thus, while a person is entitled to inspect documents relating to him, the right to inspect would not apply if those documents consist of preliminary intra office memoranda containing preliminary drafts and notes and expressions of opinions and recommendations. The preliminary status of the documents permits them to be excluded from inspection even by the person who prepared them. See OAG 84-249 and OAG 86-26, copies of which are enclosed.

It is, therefore, the opinion of the Attorney General that the public agency's denial of the request to inspect and copy documents consisting of weekly status reports from one state police officer to other officials of the State Police summarizing what this particular section had done during a particular week, was proper under the Open Records Act as such documents may be excluded from public inspection as preliminary intra office memoranda under KRS 61.878(1)(g) and (h). In addition, a person's right to inspect documents, set forth in KRS 61.884, is subject to the provisions and limitations of KRS 61.878.

As required by statute a copy of this opinion is being sent to the requesting party's attorney, J. Guthrie True, Esq., who has the right to challenge it in the appropriate circuit court pursuant to KRS 61.880(5).

1986

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 2

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 1

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 5

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 4

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 3

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 7

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 6

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 8

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 9

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 10

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 11

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 12

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 13

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 16

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 14

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 15

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 17

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 18

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 19

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 20

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 21

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 22

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 23

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 24

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 25

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 26

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 28

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 27

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 29

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 30

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 33

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 31

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 32

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 35

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 34

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 36

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 38

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 39

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 37

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 40

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 41

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 42

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 43

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 45

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 44

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 46

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 47

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 48

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 49

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 50

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 51

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 52

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 54

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 53

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 55

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 56

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 57

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 58

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 59

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 60

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 61

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 62

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 63

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 64

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 65

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 66

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 67

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 68

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 69

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 70

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 71

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 72

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 74

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 73

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 75

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 76

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 77

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 78

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 79

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 80

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 81

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 82

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 83

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 85

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 84

1986 Ky. AG LEXIS 86

LLM Summary
The decision of the Attorney General supports the Kentucky State Police's denial of a request to inspect and copy certain documents, specifically weekly status reports, under the provisions of KRS 61.878(1)(g) and (h). These documents are considered preliminary intra-office memoranda and thus are excluded from public inspection. The decision follows previous opinions (OAG 86-32, OAG 86-26, OAG 86-05, and OAG 84-249) that have established similar interpretations of the law regarding the non-disclosure of preliminary documents.
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:
1987 Ky. AG LEXIS 84
Cites (Untracked):
  • OAG 86-05
Forward Citations:
Neighbors

Support Our Work

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