Request By:
[NO REQUESTBY IN ORIGINAL]
Opinion
Opinion By: ALBERT B. CHANDLER III, ATTORNEY GENERAL; Amye L. Bensenhaver, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
This is an appeal from the Kentucky State Police's response to Clayton Clouse Jr.'s September 10, 1997, request for all records relating to his indictment in Johnson Circuit Court, 89-CR-0004, and the charges against him. Mr. Clouse directed his request to Captain Jim Pennington at the KSP office in Versailles, Kentucky. He received no response. This appeal followed.
Upon receipt of notification of Mr. Clouse's appeal, Diane H. Smith, official custodian of records for the Kentucky State Police, contacted this office to advise us that the State Police had no record of the appeal. She explained that Captain Pennington retired in August, 1996, and that KSP has no Versailles office. Ms. Smith indicated that KSP would promptly respond "upon receipt of a proper request."
On October 15, 1997, this office forwarded a copy of Mr. Clouse's request to the Kentucky State Police, asking that KSP respond to the request in writing and within three business days per KRS 61.880(1). We asked that KSP send the original of the response to Mr. Clouse, and a copy of the response to this office, noting that if KSP denied the request, the Attorney General would "issue a decision stating whether [it] complied with the provisions of the Open Records Act. "
On October 17, 1997, Ms. Smith sent a letter to Mr. Clouse advising him that the State Police would "make every effort to honor [his] request" if he would provide her with his "complete name, address and social security number. " Ms. Smith sent a copy of this letter to the Attorney General.
The question presented in this appeal is whether the Kentucky State Police violated the Open Records Act in its handling of Mr. Clouse's records. Based on this office's decision in 94-ORD-101, we conclude that the State Police improperly required more information in his open records request than the law requires.
KRS 61.872(2) provides that the official custodian of records "may require written application, signed by the applicant and with his name printed legibly on the application, describing the records to be inspected. " In analyzing this language, the Attorney General has observed:
A public agency cannot demand or require more in regard to a request to inspect public records than is required by KRS 61.872(2). The public agency may require, if it desires to do so, that a request or application be in writing. If a written request or application is required, the statute is satisfied if the written application whether or not submitted on the public agency's form contains the following:
94-ORD-101, p. 3. This position is premised on the notion that:
Public agencies may put into their regulations the requirement for written application but we believe it is contrary to the letter and spirit of the open records law for an agency to make it more difficult to inspect a public record than it was before the open records law was enacted. Records which are easily described and readily available, such as tax assessment records, should not be temporarily withheld from inspection by red tape under the pretense of complying with the open records law.
OAG 76-588, p. 2; see also 97-ORD-141.
Although his request was originally misdirected, Mr. Clouse satisfied the requirements of KRS 61.872(2) in submitting his open records request. Mr. Clouse used Finance and Administration Cabinet Form B-010-1 which includes the applicant's signature, name, and a description of the records to be inspected. The form also includes the applicant's address. It does not include the applicant's social security number. This item of information, as we have said, cannot be required inasmuch as it exceeds the requirements of KRS 61.872(2).
We acknowledge that there may be occasions when a public agency may properly require additional personal identifiers to insure that the requester receives his own records as opposed to records belonging to someone with the same name. Such would be the case if, for example, John Smith requested copies of records in KSP's custody that relate to him. In light of KRS 61.872(2), we believe that additional identifiers should only be required in exceptional circumstances, and not as a matter of policy.
We therefore find that the Kentucky State Police violated the Open Records Act in refusing to honor Mr. Clouse's request until he submitted his social security number. Upon receipt of all applicable charges, including copying and postage charges, the State Police should furnish Mr. Clouse with all nonexempt records in its custody which satisfy his request.
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating action in the appropriate circuit court pursuant to KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882. Pursuant to KRS 61.880(3), the Attorney General should be notified of any action in circuit court, but should not be named as a party in that action or in any subsequent proceeding.