Opinion
Opinion By: Jack Conway,Attorney General;Amye L. Bensenhaver,Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
Jack C. Duvall, Jr., appeals the partial denial of his June 14, 2014, request for a copy of the dashcam video and any other documents relating to an incident that occurred in Calloway County on December 16, 2012, that resulted in the DUI arrest of an individual who has since filed a civil suit against Mr. Duvall. He explained that he intended to use the video as part of his legal defense. KSP provided Mr. Duvall with copies of the citation, dispatch log, and audio recorded call and radio transmissions relating to the incident, 1 but denied his request for the dashcam video. Relying on KRS 189A.100(2), KSP maintained that "recordings taken from police cruisers [can] only be used for official purposes through a court of law." Additionally, KSP cited KRS 61.878(1)(l) authorizing nondisclosure of records made confidential by enactment of the General Assembly. Mr. Duvall subsequently initiated this appeal asserting that KSP misapplied KRS 189A.100(2) since the dashcam video relates to a pending legal action. We affirm KSP's denial of Mr. Duvall's request for the dashcam video based on KRS 189A.100(2), incorporated into the Open Records Act by KRS 61.878(1)(l), and past open records decisions construing that confidentiality provision.
KRS 189A.100(2) provides:
Law enforcement agencies may record on film or videotape or by other visual and audible means the pursuit of a violator or suspected violator, the traffic stop, or field sobriety tests administered at the scene of an arrest for violation of KRS 189A.010 2 or such tests at a police station, jail, or other suitable facility subject to the following conditions:
In 93-ORD-133 the Attorney General analyzed this statute:
Chapter 189A of the Kentucky Revised Statutes deals exclusively with the criminal offense of driving under the influence. KRS 189A.100(2) authorizes law enforcement agencies to record field sobriety tests administered at the scene of an arrest, the police station, the jail, or other suitable facilities "for violation of KRS 189A.010," prohibiting driving while under the influence. If certain conditions are met, the prosecution or defense may introduce the videotape at trial. Thus, the videotape can only be used for official purposes and by the prosecutor and defense attorney "in preparation for a trial" of a person charged with DUI. It must otherwise be treated as a confidential record, the unauthorized release of which is punishable as official misconduct in the first degree. KRS 189A.100(2)(g).
We rejected the requester's claim that he was entitled to a copy of a dashcam video because his client, on whose behalf he requested the video, was not charged with DUI but was instead charged with alcohol intoxication. Noting that it was his client's companion who was charged with DUI, we determined that under KRS 189A.100(2)(d) "the entire videotape must be made available to [his client's] companion, or her companion's attorney, a reasonable time before her companion's trial for driving under the influence," but that release of the video was "otherwise strictly prohibited." See also 05-ORD-270 (holding that a DUI videotape was not available for post-conviction relief since it could "only be used for official purposes and by the prosecutor and defense attorney in preparation for trial of a person charged with DUI"); 10-ORD-088 (holding that police department properly withheld DUI videotape for use by attorney representing a client in "her case for negligence against an impaired driver"); compare 09-ORD-140 (holding that police department improperly withheld dashcam video of a non-DUI stop on the basis of KRS 189A.100(2) because that provision was "facially inapplicable").
Like the requester in 10-ORD-088, Mr. Duvall indicates that he intends to use the disputed daschcam video in civil litigation tangentially related to the DUI arrest recorded in the video. The video is only available for the "official purposes" described in KRS 189A.100(2)(e)1., 2., and 3. These "official purposes" do not include use in the defense of a civil action. Absent proof of use for an official purpose of the video of a DUI pursuit, a stop, or field sobriety test, KSP is legally obligated to treat the video as a confidential record. Unauthorized use of such a video is punishable as official conduct in the first degree. KRS 189A.100(2)(g). As KSP observes, Mr. Duvall may be entitled to obtain a copy of the video "in the course of any litigation he may be involved in, pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure," but he is not entitled to obtain a copy of the statutorily protected video through an open records request. KRS 61.878(1)(l) makes this clear by authorizing agencies to withhold records or information "the disclosure of which is prohibited or restricted or otherwise made confidential by enactment of the General Assembly." KSP properly relied on KRS 189A.100(2) and KRS 61.878(1)(l), in denying Mr. Duvall's request for the dashcam video relating to the December 16, 2012, incident for use in civil litigation.
Mr. Duvall advances additional arguments in support of his position that KSP improperly denied his request. He first argues that KSP ignored KRS 61.884. That statute provides that "[a]ny person shall have access to any public record relating to him or her in which he is mentioned by name, upon representation of appropriate identification, subject to the provisions of KRS 61.878 ." (Emphasis added.) KRS 61.884 only invests a requester with the right to inspect nonexempt records, i.e., those that are not "subject to the provisions of KRS 61.878," that relate to him. OAG 85-88; 00-ORD-190; 02-ORD-118. "The statutory exceptions [codified at KRS 61.878(1)(a)-(n)] swallow the rule that a person must be allowed access to records that relate to him." 02-ORD-118. These exceptions include KRS 61.878(1)(l), authorizing nondisclosure of records make confidential by enactment of the General Assembly and incorporating KRS 189A.100(2), making a dashcam video of a DUI arrest a "confidential record" unless it is used for one of three "official purposes" that are not applicable here. Mr. Duvall's first alternative argument therefore fails.
Mr. Duvall next asserts that KRS 61.870(4)(b)3. addresses the use of a public record "in the preparation for prosecution or defense of litigation, or claim settlement by the parties to such action, or the attorneys representing the parties." This provision appears under the statute heading "Definitions for KRS 61.872 to 61.884" and establishes an exclusion from the definition of the term "commercial purpose. " 3 Thus, an agency cannot treat as a commercial purpose the use of a public record in the preparation for prosecution or defense of litigation or claims settlement in considering application of KRS 61.874(4) , (5), and (6) to a records request. KRS 61.870(4)(b)3. is definitional and does not create an independent basis upon which to assert a right of access. Mr. Duvall's second alternative argument also fails.
Finally, Mr. Duvall maintains that KSP erroneously invoked KRS 61.878(1)(a), the "privacy exception," as a basis for withholding the dashcam video. KSP did not, in fact, rely on KRS 61.878(1)(a) as the basis for withholding the video but instead relied exclusively on KRS 189A.100(2) and KRS 61.878(1)(l). KSP relied on the privacy exception to redact personal information from the records disclosed to Mr. Duvall, and he did not object to these redactions. Because he focused on KSP's denial of that portion of his request relating to the dashcam video, and because KSP's reliance on KRS 189A.100(2) and KRS 61.878(1)(l) was proper, we affirm its partial denial of Mr. Duvall's request.
Either party may appeal this decision 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.
Footnotes
Footnotes