Opinion
Opinion By: Jack Conway, 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 provisions of KRS 61.870 to 61.884 in the disposition of Jaron Teague's requests for information relating to his impounded automobile. Although the LMPD denied having received Mr. Teague's requests, it went to extraordinary lengths to satisfy them, contacting the Louisville Metro Department of Public Works and Assets Vehicle Impoundment Division in order to locate and compile the information sought, the Department of Corrections to transmit the information sought, and the Office of the Public Defender in order to defray the costs of copies of the information sought. 1 That information was produced in both a narrative form and in documentation produced at the Department of Corrections for inspection and copying. 2 The LMPD thereafter fully discharged its obligation of the Open Records Act by notifying Mr. Teague that there is no record responsive to his "request for a copy of the notification that was sent to him at LMDC," and explaining that "notification of impoundment of a vehicle is sent to the most current address of the registered owner listed in the NCIS database," in this case a Shawnee Terrace address. In this regard, we find that 02-ORD-163, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference, is controlling. LMPD cannot produce for inspection and copying that which it does not have, and discharged its statutory obligation by promptly so notifying Mr. Teague. We find no error in LMPD's disposition of Mr. Teague'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.
Distributed to:
Jaron S. Teague, #281191Robert WhiteTerri A. GeraghtyWilliam P. O'Brien
Footnotes
Footnotes
1 That office subsequently determined that "copy charges pursuant to open records requests [do not] fall[] within the parameter of KRS 31.100 et seq. as expenses incurred in representation of needy persons."
2 Mr. Teague is not, as this office has so often noted, entitled to a free copy of the records containing the information sought. See, e.g., Friend v. Rees, 69 S.W.2d 325 (Ky. App. 1985); 09-ORD-069; OAG 90-108.