Opinion
Opinion By: Albert B. Chandler III, Attorney General; Gerard R. Gerhard, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question raised in this appeal is, in substance, whether the police department of Dayton, Kentucky, responded to a request to inspect certain records, and, if it did, the ramifications of any excessive delay in responding.
As explained below, it appears the Dayton Police Department timely responded to a request to inspect public records, and, in so doing, complied with the Open Records Act, (KRS 61.880(1)).
Jason Woods, Kentucky State Reformatory # 164387, appealed to this office (the Kentucky Attorney General's Office) by letter dated June 2, 2003, indicating he had not received a reply to a request to an Open Records Request submitted to the Dayton Police Department on May 6, 2003.
Upon receiving notice from this office of Mr. Woods' appeal, the Dayton Police Department responded by letter of about June 13, 2003, indicating that a request from Mr. Woods was received on May 20, 2003, and that his request was responded to on May 21, 2003. The Department's response to this office was accompanied by a copy of its response to Mr. Woods dated 5/21/03.
Although Mr. Woods letter of appeal to this office indicated that he had submitted a request to the Dayton Police Department on May 6, 2003, his request bears a notary's signature, presumably done at the Reformatory, dated May 12, 2003. It thus appears that Mr. Woods request would not have been received by the Dayton Police Department until sometime after May 12, 2003, which is not inconsistent with the Department's indication that the request was received on May 20, 2003. It might well be that Mr. Woods received the Department's response after submitting his appeal to this office.
Given the information available to this office as of this writing, it appears that the Dayton Police Department received an Open Records Request on May 20, 2003, and issued a response dated May 21, 2003. The Department's response was within the statutory time allowed for a response. KRS 61.880(1). It follows that the Dayton Police Department did not violate the Open Records Act (KRS 61.870 to 61.884).