Request By:
[NO REQUESTBY IN ORIGINAL]
Opinion
Opinion By: Albert B. Chandler III, Attorney General; James M. Ringo, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
This matter comes to the Attorney General on appeal from the Kentucky State Police's denial of Mr. Rick Nelson's request for "any information of Scott Madon, car wash owner and the alleged theft of Pineville City water."
By letter, Ms. Diane H. Smith, Official Custodian of Records, Kentucky State Police, relying upon KRS 61.878(1)(l) and KRS 17.150(2), denied Mr. Nelson's request, stating the records he sought were part of an open case.
After receipt of Mr. Nelson's letter of appeal, Ms. Smith, by response to this office dated July 10, 2000, indicated that, as of that date, the investigation remained active, that the case was ongoing, and the case files were exempt under authorities cited in its original response.
For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the Kentucky State Police acted consistently with the Open Records Act in denying access to the requested records.
KRS 61.878(1)(l) provides in pertinent part:
The following public records are excluded from the application of KRS 61.870 to 61.884 and shall be subject to inspection only upon order of a court of competent jurisdiction;
. . .
(1) Public records or information the disclosure of which is prohibited or restricted or otherwise made confidential by enactment of the General Assembly.
KRS 17.150(2) provides for the nondisclosure of intelligence and investigative reports maintained by criminal justice agencies prior to the completion of the prosecution or the decision not to prosecute has been made.
This office has stated in numerous past opinions that a Kentucky State Police case file is not open for inspection while the investigation is ongoing. 95-ORD-15, 93-ORD-98, OAG 91-8, and OAG 90-143.
Accordingly, it is the decision of this office that the Kentucky State Police properly denied Mr. Nelson's request for a copy of its investigative file in this matter on the basis that the investigation was still open and ongoing. The agency's denial is in accord and consistent with KRS 61.878(1)(l) and KRS 17.150(2).
Once the investigation and legal action have been completed or a decision has been made to take no legal action, the records requested would be subject to public inspection unless excluded by another applicable statutory exception to the right of public inspection. OAG 90-143.
Moreover, the Kentucky Open Records Act addresses requests for records, not requests for information. To the extent Mr. Nelson's was a request for information, rather that specifically identified records, the agency could properly deny such a request for information. In 95-ORD-131, p. 2, we observed:
Requests for information, as distinguished from records, are outside of the scope of the open records provisions. See, e.g., OAG 89-77. Our position is premised on the notion that "open records provisions address only inspection of records . . . [and] do not require public agencies or officials to provide or compile specific information to conform to the parameters of a given request."
The purpose of the Open Records Act is not to provide information, but to provide access to public records that are not exempt by law. OAG 79-547. Thus, we conclude that the Kentucky State Police did not violate the Act in denying Mr. Nelson's request for information.
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.