Opinion
Opinion By: Albert B. Chandler III, Attorney General; James M. Ringo, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether the actions of the Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD) relative to the open records request of Paul L. Kindell violated the Open Records Act. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the actions of the agency were procedurally and substantively in compliance with the Open Records Act.
By letter dated February 13, 2003, Mr. Kindell submitted a request to the City of Louisville, Division of Police [now Louisville Metro Police Department], which, in relevant part, stated:
I filed a open records request dated 11-8-02, on Officer Tuxy/Badge #2664. In your response dated Dec. 4, 2002, you stated that there's not a Officer D. Tuxy/Badge #2664 that is employed by your department. Ms. Smiley this Officer's name was on the police citation along with these other officer's. (see attach open records request) Please forward me a copy of the citation report with all of these officer's name on it. This is govern[ed] by KRS 61.870.
By letter dated February 20, 2003, Wm. Dennis Sims, Police Legal Advisor, LMPD, responded to Mr. Kindell's letter on behalf of the agency, acknowledging receipt of his Open Records request, dated February 13, 2003, and received on February 20, 2003, and advising:
Upon further review of the citation that you provided to Ms. Smiley, it has been determined that the name of the officer in question is not "Tuxy". It is actually the name of Major David Ray, code #2664. Since you had previously provided the citation, #8634213, to Ms. Smiley, there was no need to charge you for and send another copy unless you advise otherwise.
Also, in anticipation of a subsequent request from you for information concerning complaints filed on Major Ray, he has no complaints on file.
After receipt of Notification of the appeal and a copy of Mr. Kindell's form letter of appeal in which he alleged a violation of the three days to answer requirement (KRS 61.880(1); requestee requiring copies to be mailed (KRS 61.872(3)); and any person shall have access to any public record of said [agency] (KRS 61.884 )). Mr. Sims, by Alicia M. Smiley, Public Information Officer, provided this office with a response to the issues raised in the appeal. In the response, LMPD advised:
Mr. Kindell alleges that the Department failed to mail a copy of a document he requested on February 13, 2003. It is important to note that this request also refers to a previous inquiry, in which Mr. Kindell asked for disciplinary and complaint information on four officers (attachment A). Mr. Kindell's request for this information was based upon an arrest citation already in his possession. This office was provided with a copy of that citation by Mr. Kindell (attachment B). This citation is the same document that Mr. Kindell alleges the Department failed to provide him. Pursuant to the Kentucky Attorney General Opinion, 97 ORD 153, which states an agency is not required to honor repeated requests for information, the Department did not mail a copy of the citation to Mr. Kindell.
The Department's response to Mr. Kindell's request for "a copy of the citation report" clearly notes that he had previously given the Department a copy of this document (attachment C). Our response also advised Mr. Kindell that since he had already had this information, payment for an additional copy would not be required unless he instructed the Department to do otherwise. Mr. Kindell did not request a fee amount or indicate that he wished to follow through with the process.
Mr. Kindell further alleges that the Department did not provide a response to his February 13, 2003 request within the three day limit. The Department did not receive Mr. Kindell's request until February 20, 2003. A reply was written and mailed that same day (attachment C).
As noted above, we are asked to determine whether the actions of the Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD) relative to the open records request of Paul L. Kindell violated the Open Records Act. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the actions of the agency were procedurally and substantively in compliance with the Open Records Act.
We address the procedural issue first. Addressing the issue of timeliness, the LMPD's initial response to Mr. Kindell's February 13, 2003, request indicated it was received on February 20, 2003, and responded to in writing on the same day. This was obviously within the three-day response time required by KRS 61.880(1) . We find no procedural violation of the Open Records Act.
With respect to duplicative requests for documents, the Attorney General has stated that an agency is not "required to satisfy the identical request a second time in the absence of some justification for resubmitting the request." 95-ORD-47, p. 6. We reasoned:
We do not believe, however, that [an agency] is required to satisfy the identical request a second time in the absence of some justification for resubmitting that request. KRS 61.872(2) provides that "[a]ny person shall have the right to inspect public records" during regular office hours or by receiving copies through the mail. Common sense dictates, however, that repeated requests for the same records may become unreasonably burdensome or disrupt the agency's essential functions. Thus, at page 6 of OAG 92-91 this office observed:
To produce . . . records once entails some inconvenience to the agency; to produce them three and four times requires a level of "patience and long-suffering" that the legislature could not have intended. Citing OAG 77-151, p. 3.
Here, as in our earlier decisions, unless Mr. Kindell can explain the necessity of reproducing the same records which have already been released to him, such as loss or destruction of the records, we can see no reason why LMPD must satisfy the same request a second time.
Moreover, in its initial response to his request, LMPD advised that he had previously been provided with a copy of the requested citation, "there was no need to charge you for and send another copy unless you advise otherwise. In its response to the letter of appeal, the LMPD stated that Mr. Kindell had not requested a fee amount or indicated that he wished to follow through with the process [of obtaining a copy of the citation.] Based on these facts, we find the actions of the LMPD relative to Mr. Kindell's request did not constitute a violation of the Open Records Act.
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.