Opinion
Opinion By: Jack Conway, Attorney General; James M. Herrick, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
At issue in this appeal is whether the Louisville Metro Police Department ("LMPD") violated the Kentucky Open Records Act in the disposition of Kenny Goben's letter of March 20, 2014. We find no violation of the Act.
Mr. Goben sent his March 20 letter to the public information office of the LMPD, stating:
Please provide me with a copy of the following requested information.
The name and address of the impound lot that stores/holds a 1988 Chevy truck plane no # 273-HJG that is registered to Kenneth Goben. This truck was seized on 12-10-09 from 735 or 739 Vine St. Lou. Ky. 40204, and pertains to case # 10-CR-000178.
Having received no reply, Mr. Goben appealed to the Attorney General on April 9, 2014.
On April 28, 2014, Assistant Jefferson County Attorney Sarah Stewart Ashburner responded to the appeal on behalf of the LMPD. She pointed out that Mr. Goben's request was for information, not for records, and argues that it therefore did not come under the purview of the Act; nevertheless, on April 21, 2014, the LMPD had attempted to the best of its ability to answer the request.
We agree that requests for information are outside the scope of open records law and an agency is not obligated to honor a request for information under the law. 02-ORD-88; KRS 61.870 et seq. The Kentucky Open Records Act addresses requests for records, not requests for information. 03-ORD-028. In 95-ORD-131, the Attorney General observed:
Requests for information, as distinguished from records, are outside of the scope of the open records provisions. See, e.g., OAG 89-77. Our position is premised on the notion that "[o]pen records provisions address only inspection of records . . . [and] do not require public agencies or officials to provide or compile specific information to conform to the parameters of a given request.
Accordingly, we find no violation of the Open Records Act. The LMPD's efforts to obtain Mr. Goben's requested information go beyond anything required by the Act.
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:
Mr. Kenny GobenMs. Sharon KingSarah Stewart Ashburner, Esq.