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 Bowling Green Police Department (BGPD) violated the Open Records Act in its response to Bryan Lee Reinhardt's requests of April 3, 2006, April 13, 2006, and April 17, 2006, described here generally, for criminal history, identification, and investigative records relating to Bryan Lee Reinhardt and Warren S. Reinhardt. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the BGPD properly denied a duplicative request for records it had previously provided; that the agency properly redacted the social security number and date of birth in records relating to Warren S. Reinhardt; and that if, in fact, any records exist that were withheld from disclosure, the BGPD must promptly respond to Mr. Reinhardt in writing by generally describing the nature of the records withheld and citing the applicable exception and providing a brief explanation of how that exception applies to the records, or portions thereof, withheld per KRS 61.880(1).
By letter dated April 18, 2006, Judy Mangold, Records Supervisor, BGPD, responded to Mr. Reinhardt's request, advising:
In regards to your recent inquiry that you have titled a "re-submission of a new ? open records request" is just that a repeat request for items contained in files of the Bowling Green Police Department that relate to your 2003 case. It has taken some time recently, but I have reviewed copies of what was mailed to you in 2005. As you are aware or at least should be aware, those copies were delivered to you via the United States Postal Service and that package contained copies of all documents and pictures that were given to you as proscribed by the rules of Chapter 61, the Kentucky Open Records Act. Any additional information that you have mentioned this time such as the "Honda Motorcycle key" are not contained within the files or the evidence section of the Bowling Green Police Department.
I have reviewed this request with the detectives involved in this part of your overall case as it pertains to the Bowling Green Police Department. They advise there is nothing else to be released to you under the Open Records Act. As this is only a part of the overall Logan County case, is it possible that the information you seek is in their files?
This concludes my return correspondence to your re-submission of an earlier Open Records request that has already been completed.
In his letter of appeal, Mr. Reinhardt asserts that some of the records previously provided by the BGPD had areas of information blacked out and in his April 3, 2006, request he asked for copies of certain records pertaining to Warren S. Reinhardt with the social security number and date of birth not redacted or blacked out.
After receipt of notification of the appeal, R. Eugene Harmon, Bowling Green City Attorney, provided this office with a response, on behalf of the BGPD, to the issues raised in the appeal. In his response, Mr. Harmon advised:
I have received the notice of the appeal of an open records request filed by Bryan Reinhardt, Log Number 200600257. In July of 2005, I responded in writing to you regarding an appeal filed by Mr. Reinhardt. At that time, you were advised that the City of Bowling Green had mailed Mr. Reinhardt 82 pages of records and 18 photographs.
On April 3, 2006, Mr. Reinhardt sent a long, rambling request for records. On April 18th, Judy Mangold responded to him that the City had previously sent him all of the records in the City's files to which he was entitled by the Kentucky Open Records Act. She advised him that the City was involved in his case only through a Logan County investigation and that Logan County may have additional information. Pursuant to the Open Records Act, the City is not obligated to resend the same records to the same requester. It is my understanding that Ms. Mangold sent Mr. Reinhardt pictures of Warren S. Reinhardt with personal information written next to the pictures that included Warren S. Reinhardt's Social Security number. I advised Ms. Mangold to redact the Social Security number due to privacy interests of Warren Reinhardt. It is clear from the statutes and OAG opinions that the Social Security number of Warren Reinhardt is confidential and falls within the privacy exception of the Open Records Act.
It appears that Mr. Reinhardt's appeal to your office is based on the redaction of Warren Reinhardt's Social Security number. Mr. Reinhardt is not entitled to that information pursuant to the Open Records Act. Obviously the City will provide an unredacted copy pursuant to an appropriate court order.
We address first the issue in which Mr. Reinhardt argues that BGPD failed to provide him with all the requested records and BGPD's assertion that the requested records had previously been provided to him in response to a previous open records request. With respect to factual disputes of this type, this office has consistently recognized:
This office cannot, with the information currently available, adjudicate a dispute regarding a disparity, if any, between records for which inspection has already been permitted, and those sought but not provided. Indeed, such is not the role of this office under open records provisions. It seems clear that you have permitted inspection of some records [the requester] asked to inspect, and that copies of some records have been provided. Hopefully[,] any dispute regarding the records here involved can be worked out through patient consultation and cooperation between the parties.
03-ORD-61, p. 2, citing OAG 89-81, p. 3; See also 03-ORD-204. Since this appeal epitomizes the type of factual dispute that we are unable to resolve, we make no finding on this issue. Under the circumstances, as described above, particularly with the large number and broad nature of the requests, we urge the parties to work toward an amiable resolution to resolve any differences or misunderstandings related to any records at issue.
Next we address that portion of the response in which BGPD indicated that it had denied Mr. Reinhardt's request for the exact same records he had been provided in previous open records request. With respect to duplicative requests for documents, the Attorney General has stated that an agency is not "required to satisfy the identical request a second time in the absence of some justification for resubmitting the request." 95-ORD-47, p. 6. We reasoned:
We do not believe, however, that [an agency] is required to satisfy the identical request a second time in the absence of some justification for resubmitting that request. KRS 61.872(2) provides that "[a]ny person shall have the right to inspect public records" during regular office hours or by receiving copies through the mail. Common sense dictates, however, that repeated requests for the same records may become unreasonably burdensome or disrupt the agency's essential functions. Thus, at page 6 of OAG 92-91 this office observed:
Here, as in our earlier decisions, unless Mr. Reinhardt can explain the necessity of reproducing the same records which either already have been provided or have been inspected by him, such as loss or destruction of the records, we can see no reason why BGPD must satisfy the same request a second time. 95-ORD-47.
We next address the issue as to whether the BGPD's redaction of the social security number and date of birth in records relating to Warren S. Reinhardt was proper. Among the public records which may be excluded from public inspection in the absence of a court order authorizing inspection, are those records described in KRS 61.878(1)(a) as, "public records containing information of a personal nature where the public disclosure thereof would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. This office has long held that information such as a person's social security number and date of birth are personal details which are generally accepted by society as carrying an expectation of privacy. 00-ORD-135; 03-ORD-057. In
Zink v. Commonwealth, Department of Workers' Claims, Ky. App., 902 S.W.2d 825, 829 (1994), the Kentucky Court of Appeals recognized that disclosure of an individual's social security number in an otherwise public record would constitute a serious intrusion into the individual's personal privacy. The court characterized these nine digit identifiers as "no less than the keys to an information kingdom as [they] relate to any given individual." Id. Accordingly, we therefore find no violation in the redaction of this personal information from the records relating to Warren S. Reinhardt.
In its response to this office, the BGPD indicated that Mr. Reinhardt was provided with all of the records in the City's files to which he was entitled under the Open Records Act. From this statement, we infer that some records may have been withheld from disclosure. KRS 61.880(1) provides in relevant part:
. . . An agency response denying, in whole or in part, inspection of any record shall include a statement of the specific exception authorizing the withholding of the record and a brief explanation of how the exception applies to the record withheld. The response shall be issued by the official custodian or under his authority, and it shall constitute final agency action. (Emphasis added).
If, in fact, any records exist that were withheld from disclosure, the BGPD must promptly respond to Mr. Reinhardt in writing by generally describing the nature of the records withheld and citing the applicable exception and providing a brief explanation of how that exception applies to the records, or portions thereof, withheld per KRS 61.880(1) in order to satisfy its burden of proof. 1
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.
Bryan L. Reinhardt, # 173109Kentucky State PenitentiaryP.O. Box 5128, 3 C/H 5-3-A-5Eddyville, KY 42038
Judy MangoldRecords SupervisorBowling Green Police Department911 Kentucky StreetBowling Green, KY 42101
H. Eugene HarmonCity Attorney328 East 10th AvenuePost Office Box 430Bowling Green, KY 42102-0430
Footnotes
Footnotes
1 In its April 18, 2006, response, the BGPD advised Mr. Reinhardt that "any additional information that you have mentioned this time such as the "Honda Motorcycle key" are not contained within the files or the evidence section of the Bowling Green Police Department. The agency properly discharged its duty under the Open Records Act by affirmatively so advising. 99-ORD-150.