Request By:
Margaret Brown
Mary Ann Scott
Roger Wright
Opinion
Opinion By: Jack Conway, Attorney General; James M. Ringo, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether the actions of the Kentucky State Police (KSP) relative to Margaret Brown's request for a copy of the investigative file pertaining to the death of her son, KSP case 04-07-0108, violated the Open Records Act. For the reasons that follow, we find no violation of the Act.
In her letter of appeal, Ms. Brown stated that she had made two requests for the investigative file, and both had been denied, pursuant to KRS 61.878(1)(h) and KRS 17.150(2), on the basis that, although the Circuit Court case was closed the KSP case was still open due to the pending disposition of the evidence.
After receipt of notification of the appeal, Mary Ann Scott, Official Custodian of Records, KSP, provided this office with a copy of her December 19, 2007, letter to Ms. Brown advising her that the KSP had agreed to make the requested investigative file available, and provided a copy of the case file, with personal information, such as date of birth, home addresses, social security numbers, etc., redacted, pursuant to KRS 61.878(1)(a). Ms. Scott further advised that pages consisting of fingerprint records submitted to a centralized database, the Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS), were removed from the file under authority of KRS 17.150, which makes records contained in a centralized criminal history database confidential and KRS 61.878(1)(l), which states that records made confidential by another Act of the General Assembly shall remain exempt from disclosure through provisions of the Kentucky Open Records Act.
Pursuant to 40 KAR 1:030, Section 6: "If 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." 04-ORD-106. Since the KSP has provided Ms. Brown with a copy of the investigative file she requested, we conclude that the appeal, as to access to those records is moot, and no decision will be rendered as to this issue.
We next address the issue of the redaction of copies of certain personal information, such as date of birth, home addresses, social security numbers, etc., pursuant to KRS 61.878(1)(a). That statute excludes from public inspection:
Public records containing information of a personal nature where the public disclosure thereof would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The Kentucky Court of Appeals in Zink v. Commonwealth, Ky. App., 902 S.W.2d 825 (1994) recognized that the purpose for which the Open Records Act was enacted would not be furthered "by disclosure of information about private citizens that is accumulated in various government files that reveals little or nothing about an agency's own conduct." Zink at 829. The court specifically identified home addresses, telephone numbers, social security numbers, and income as those items of information in which the public has no legitimate interest. The KSP could also properly redact dates of birth. 07-ORD-141. We believe that the reasoning in Zink can be extended to the present appeal. Under Zink, the KSP could properly redact the personal information in the records at issue here, as this information would reveal negligible information about the agency's conduct. KRS 61.878(4).
Similarly, we find no error in KSP's denial of access to fingerprint records submitted to a centralized criminal history database, the Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS). In support of its denial, KSP properly invokes KRS 17.150(4) pursuant to which:
Centralized criminal history records are not subject to public inspection. Centralized history records mean information on individuals collected and compiled by the Justice Cabinet from criminal justice agencies and maintained in a central location consisting of identifiable descriptions and notations of arrests, detentions, indictments, information or other formal criminal charges and any disposition arising therefrom, including sentencing, correctional supervision, and release. The information shall be restricted to that recorded as the result of the initiation of criminal proceedings or any proceeding related thereto. Nothing in this subsection shall apply to documents maintained by criminal justice agencies which are the source of information collected by the Justice Cabinet. Criminal justice agencies shall retain the documents and no official thereof shall willfully conceal or destroy any record with intent to violate the provisions of this section.
Denial of access to centralized criminal history records maintained by KSP has been approved in a series of open records decisions dating back to 1976. See, e.g., OAG 76-604; 06-ORD-128 (and other decisions cited therein). We see no reason to depart from this line of open records decisions, and, accordingly, we affirm KSP's denial of access to fingerprint records in the investigative file. KRS 17.150(4) , incorporated into the Open Records Act by KRS 61.878(l).
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.