Opinion
Opinion By: Gregory D. Stumbo, Attorney General; Amye L. Bensenhaver, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
This matter having been presented to the Attorney General in an open records appeal, and the Attorney General being sufficiently advised, we find that the Louisville Metro Police Department did not violate the Open Records Act in the disposition of Edward Mitchell, Jr.'s, January 17, 2006, request for "all records regarding case no. 04-CR-0457 (Robbery 1st & Assault 1st) that may be held at this office (including reports-statements-citations-911 calls, etc.)." (Sic.) By letter dated February 16, 2006, 1 the Department notified Mr. Mitchell that it had been "unable to identify any records under the case number he provided," but suggested that he "submit another open records request identifying the approximate date and location of the robbery 1st/assault 1st . . . [along with his] social security number and date of birth . . ." to assist the Department in its search for responsive records. We find that 99-ORD-75, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference, is dispositive of the issue on appeal. The Department cannot produce a record it is unable to locate due to the nonspecificity of the request. We therefore find no error in the disposition of Mr. Mitchell's request.
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 In supplemental correspondence directed to this office following commencement of Mr. Mitchell's appeal, Public Information Officer Alicia M. Smiley advised that neither the LMPD Records Department nor the LMPD Public Information Office have any record that his request was received. The Attorney General is not equipped to resolve a factual dispute concerning the actual delivery and receipt of Mr. Mitchell's request. If, however, his request did not reach the Department, for whatever reason, that agency should not be faulted for its failure to respond. Accord, 02-ORD-226.