Opinion
Opinion By: Gregory D. Stumbo, Attorney General; James M. Ringo, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether the actions of the Bardstown Police Department relative to Christopher B. Hopper's request for a copy of "dispatch calls on the morning of May 25, 2005" pertaining to case #05-CR-0207; "inventory of all items in vehicle;" and "VIN numbers and name and address of person vehicle registered to," violated the Open Records Act. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the Department's actions were proper and did not violate the Act.
After receipt of notification of the appeal and a copy of the letter of appeal, Tom Donan, Bardstown City Attorney provided this office with a response to the issues raised in the appeal. In his response, Mr. Donan advised that the Department had provided Mr. Hopper with a 36 page printout of the dispatch calls for May 25, 2005. Mr. Donan also provided this office with a copy of the January 6, 2006 letter to Mr. Hopper from Chief Charles D. Marksbury, in which the Chief advised him that he would need to contact Detective Tom Roby with the Greater Hardin County Drug Task Force, 220 N. 5th Street, Bardstown, KY 40004, for the requested vehicle inventory and registration information.
40 KAR 1:030, Section 6, provides: "If the requested documents are made available to the complaining party after a complaint is made, the Attorney General shall decline to issue a decision in the matter." Since Mr. Hopper was provided with a printout of the dispatch calls on May 25, 2005, the issue as to that requested record is moot and no decision will be rendered as to it.
The Department also advised that it did not have copies of the requested vehicle inventory and registration information. Obviously, a public agency cannot afford a requester access to a record that it does not have or that does not exist. 99-ORD-98. The agency discharges its duty under the Open Records Act by affirmatively so stating. 99-ORD-150. The Department discharged its duty under the Open Records Act by affirmatively so advising that it did not have a copy of the vehicle inventory and registration information. 99-ORD-150.
Moreover, KRS 61.872(4) provides:
If the person to whom the application is directed does not have custody or control of the public record requested, that person shall notify the applicant and shall furnish the name and location of the official custodian of the agency's public records.
As noted above, Chief Marksbury provided Mr. Hopper with the name and location of the official custodian of the agency that would have the requested vehicle inventory and registration information. This was in compliance with the requirements of KRS 61.872(4); 03-ORD-225. Accordingly, we find no violation of the Open Records Act in this regard.
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.