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 Louisville Metro Police violated the Open Records Act in the disposition of Michael Holt's request for documentation showing that Louisville Police Officer Gregory Reid #6580 or any other officer was demoted, disciplined, or fired for allegations made by Brittney London. For the reasons that follow, we find that the agency's disposition of his request was consistent with the Open Records Act.
In his letter of appeal, Mr. Holt advised that he had received no response to his request.
After receipt of notification of the appeal, Alicia M. Smiley, Public Information Office, provided this office with a response on behalf of the Louisville Metro Police to the issues raised in the appeal. In her response, Ms. Smiley stated that it had not received a copy of Mr. Holt's request until it received one from the Attorney General in his notification of the appeal. Addressing the substance of Mr. Holt's request, she advised, in relevant part:
This office has since contacted our Professional Standards Unit which is responsible for maintaining all disciplinary records, citizen complaints, and administrative investigation files concerning Louisville Metro Police Officers. The Professional Standards Unit has advised that they have no record of any complaint(s) being made by Brittney London. As such, there is no record showing that Officer Reed or any other officer has ever been demoted or disciplined in relation to complaints made by Ms. London.
As long recognized by the Attorney General, a public agency cannot afford a requester access to records which it does not possess or which do not exist. 04-ORD-036. An agency discharges its duty under the Open Records Act by affirmatively so indicating. Ms. Smiley advised that The Professional Standards Unit had indicated that they had no record of any complaint(s) being made by Brittney London and, thus, there was no record responsive to Mr. Holt's request. Because Louisville Metro Police affirmatively advised Mr. Holt that it did not have the requested record and adequately explained the steps taken to see if such a record was maintained or existed at the facility, its response did not violate the Open Records Act. 99-ORD-108, p. 3.
Insufficient information is presented in this appeal for this office to conclusively resolve the factual dispute and the related procedural issue concerning the actual delivery and receipt of Mr. Holt's open records request, and we make no finding in this regard. See 05-ORD-013; 03-ORD-061.
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.