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 Alexandria Police Department violated the Open Records Act in the disposition of Chris Henson's June 13, 2003 request for "copies of all offense/incident reports you have on file that has [sic] reference to the [eleven] individuals listed [by name, gender, race, date of birth, and social security number] below." For the reasons that follow, we find that although its original response to Mr. Henson's request reflected a misinterpretation of that request, the Department's supplemental response was entirely consistent with the requirements of the Act.
In his June 19 response, Assistant Chief Joseph Alexander erroneously treated Mr. Henson's request as a request for criminal history records, furnishing him with a copy of Form AOC-PT-49, used to obtain information contained in the CourtNet Disposition System from the Administrative Office of the Courts, and suggesting that he submit the form for each of the eleven individuals listed. Alternatively, he suggested that if Mr. Henson wished to access records relating to offenses occurring in the City of Alexandria exclusively, he must submit his request on the Department's Public Records Information Request Form in person during the Department's regular office hours. 1 It is to this response that Mr. Henson objects.
In supplemental correspondence directed to Mr. Henson following commencement of his appeal, a copy of which was mailed to this office, Chief Michael Ward advised:
I reviewed your letter of request and directed our clerks to conduct an extensive search of the records maintained by the Alexandria Police Department. They searched all offense and incident report records for the eleven-11 individuals you requested. We found NO record.
If you have specific dates, times, or types of activities that would help us narrow our search, please notify us immediately. Otherwise, based on the information you provided we were unable to find anything in our system. Although you made reference to our CAD (Computer Aided Dispatch), be advised that we only checked data relating specifically to the Alexandria Police Department. If there are records in CAD that contain the information you are looking for, you will have to contact the other agencies in the county individually for we are not responsible for their records.
In closing, Chief Ward asked that Mr. Henson contact him to discuss lingering questions or concerns, emphasizing that it was not the Department's "intent to keep any public record from [Mr. Henson]." Based on Chief Ward's response and this office's decision in 03-ORD-179, we affirm the Department's disposition of Mr. Henson's request.
In 03-ORD-179, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference, this office determined that the Bellevue Police Department properly refused to honor Mr. Henson's demand that copies of records responsive to an identical open records request be mailed to him. At page six of that decision, the Attorney General observed:
[P]ersons who wish to exercise their right of inspection by receipt of copies through the mail are required to "precisely describe[] the public records, " and those records must be "readily available within the public agency. " KRS 61.872(3)(b). Thus, KRS 61.872(3)(b) places a greater burden on persons who wish to receive copies by mail to describe "in definite, specific, and unequivocal terms" the desired records. 97-ORD-35, pp. 2, 3; see also 99-ORD-210. Persons who wish to conduct on-site inspection of public records need only "identify them with sufficient clarity to enable the public agency to locate and make them available." OAG 89-8, p. 4. Mr. Henson's request may have been sufficiently specific to satisfy the latter standard, but it is by no means sufficiently specific to satisfy the former standard. [Footnote omitted.]
Notwithstanding the lack of precision of Mr. Henson's request, the Alexandria Police Department undertook an extensive search for responsive records maintained by the Department. That search yielded no results. Having notified Mr. Henson in writing that the Department maintains no records that are responsive to his request, as framed, and having documented the steps taken in conducting its search, the Department fully discharged its duty under the Open Records Act. 01-ORD-38. Nevertheless, Chief Ward extended an offer to Mr. Henson to engage in further discussion relative to his request to the Alexandria Police Department and urged him to contact other law enforcement agencies to access records maintained by those agencies. Clearly, the Open Records Act requires no more.
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 The Attorney General has long recognized that a requester cannot be required to use a particular form or employ specific legal terminology when tendering a request under the Open Records Act as long as the request contains the requester's signature, the requester's name printed legibly, and a description of the records to be inspected. KRS 61.872(2); OAG 76-588; 94-ORD-101; 96-ORD-19; 99-ORD-148. Nor can the requester be required to hand-deliver his request. KRS 61.872(2) also authorizes submission of an open records request by mail or fax.