Opinion
Opinion By: Albert B. Chandler III, Attorney General; Amye L. Bensenhaver, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether the Louisville Metro Police Department violated the Open Records Act in responding to Tommy L. Jones's May 6, 2003 request for "information regarding Officer Azell Jackson/Badge #2886 . . . [including] how many trials he . . . participated [in] prior to Sept. 10, 2002." For the reasons that follow, we find that the Department did not violate the Act, and that its actions were consistent with the applicable provisions of the Act.
On May 14, 2003, Mr. Jones initiated this appeal to the Attorney General utilizing a typewritten form popular among prison inmates that identifies alleged agency violations by "check[] off in the referral box." Mr. Jones "checked off":KRS 61.880(1)The Three Days to answer requirement.KRS 61.872(5)Explanation for Denial.KRS 61.884Any person shall have access to any public record ofsaid [sic].
He did not offer any accompanying explanation.
In correspondence directed to this office following commencement of this appeal, the Department's Legal Advisor, William Dennis Sims, advised this office:
Mr. Jones request for information was dated May 6, 2003 and received by the Department on Thursday afternoon, May 8, 2003. A response was prepared and mailed to Mr. Jones on the following Monday, May 12, 2003, well within the required three day limit. 1
LMPD does not maintain or possess records relating to an officer's participation in court trials. Personnel records maintained by the Department do provide the officer's length of employment with LMPD as well as pay scale(s), however, various assignments within the Department are not included. Again, Mr. Jones was advised that the information he was seeking did not exist in a public record format.
The Attorney General's office has previously ruled that an agency is not required to supply records that do not exist, (98-ORD-200, 98-ORD-154, 98-ORD-80, 97-ORD-180, 96-ORD-151). Nor is a public agency obligated to create records to satisfy a particular Open Records Request, (97-ORD-56, 96-ORD-139, 95-ORD-48).
On this basis, Mr. Sims urged the Attorney General to affirm the Department's actions. Having reviewed the record on appeal, we affirm.
As Mr. Sims correctly observes, the Attorney General has long recognized that a public agency is not statutorily obligated to honor a request for information as opposed to a request for specifically described public records. For example, in 93-ORD-51 this office held that the Open Records Act:
was not intended to provide a requester with particular "information," or to require public agencies to compile information to conform to the parameters of a given request. See, e.g., OAG 76-375; OAG 79-547; OAG 81-335, OAG 86-51; OAG 87-84; OAG 89-77; OAG 89-81; OAG 90-19. Rather, the Law provides for inspection of reasonably identified records.
93-ORD-51, p. 3. Mirroring this view, in OAG 87-84 we observed:
Public agencies are not required by the Open Records Act to gather and supply information independent of that which is set forth in public records. The public has a right to inspect public documents and to obtain whatever information is contained in them but the primary impact of the Open Records Act is to make records available for inspection and copying and not to require the gathering and supplying of information.
OAG 87-84, p. 3. These decisions were premised on the language of the statutes themselves, including KRS 61.871 (providing that "free and open examination of public records is in the public interest"), KRS 61.872(1) (providing that "[a]ll public records shall be open for inspection by any person"), and KRS 61.872(2) (providing that "[a]ny person shall have the right to inspect public records" ) (emphasis added).
Accordingly, we find that the Louisville Metro Police Department's actions in responding to Mr. Jones's request were entirely consistent with the requirements of the Open Records Act, including the requirement of a timely agency response codified at KRS 61.880(1). In light of this decision, Mr. Jones may wish to consider reformulating his open records request as a request for reasonably described public records as opposed to a 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.
Footnotes
Footnotes
1 Mr. Sims included a copy of the Department's response as an attachment to his letter.