Opinion
Opinion By: Andy Beshear,Attorney General;Gordon R. Slone,Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The issue presented in this appeal is whether Jefferson County Sheriff's Office ("Sheriff's Office") violated the Open Records Act in its disposition of attorney Sherry Keith Kelley's open records request for records relating to complaints that may have been lodged with the Sheriff's Office against a client of Ms. Kelley. For the reasons stated below, we find no substantive violation of the Open Records Act.
In her undated request to the "Records Custodian" of the Sheriff's Office, Ms. Kelley made a request to inspect copies of "any and all complaints lodged against [Ms. Kelley's client], with your office, for the period between October 30, 2017 through November 5, 2017." Ms. Kelley stated that "[t]his request is being made pursuant to open records law section KRS 61.884 and 61.991." Ms. Kelley also included the street address of the client for whom she was requesting the complaints. She further requested "If your office does not maintain these public records, please let me know who does and include the proper custodian's name and address." In response to Ms. Kelley's request, the Sheriff's Office sent her an unsigned and undated notice stating, "The Jefferson County Sheriff's Office does not complete Criminal Background checks. We recommend you contact the Kentucky State Police for a complete, statewide background check. " The response included the address, phone numbers, and website address for the Kentucky State Police headquarters. Ms. Kelley appealed the Sheriff's Office's response by letter dated November 29, 2017.
Annale Renneker, Assistant County Attorney, responded to the appeal on behalf of the Sheriff's Office. Ms. Renneker explained the response by the Sheriff's Office as being "inadvertently interpreted" as a request for a background check and was thus directed to the wrong person for a response. "For this mistake, the JCSO [Jefferson County Sheriff's Office] apologizes and offers the following response to Ms. Kelley's request." Ms. Renneker further explained that the Sheriff's Office is not an agency that accepts complaints. Its duties consist of serving paperwork and notices as required by the courts. Examples of such services include the service of summons, Emergency Protective Orders, eviction notices, and general subpoenas. The Sheriff's Office also serves as a dispatch agency for various small police departments in Jefferson County:
When a request for service is made by a citizen in one of those small police department's jurisdictions, the JCSO dispatches an officer of the appropriate police department. At that point, JCSO is no longer involved in that particular request for service and has no knowledge of any records created as a result of that request for service. However, a record of the dispatch by JCSO is created and maintained.
The JCSO checked both its RMS [records management system] and dispatch logs and found no responsive records to Ms. Kelley's request. It was determined that the address provided by Ms. Kelley is located within the Audubon Park Police Department's jurisdiction. It is possible that the Audubon Park Police Department may have responsive records. They may be reached at 3340 Robin Road, Louisville, KY 40213.
Although Ms. Kelley's request was clearly not a request for a background check, we accept Ms. Renneker's explanation that the request was misinterpreted. There are no facts on the record to determine otherwise, and the Sheriff's Office response appears to be a good faith response to a request for a criminal background check. The response from Ms. Renneker fully explained why the Sheriff's Office would not have custody of the requested records and provided the name and address of the most likely custodian of the records. KRS 61.872(4) requires: "If the person to whom the application is directed does not have custody or control of the public record requested, that person shall notify the applicant and shall furnish the name and location of the official custodian of the agency's public records. " The response from Ms. Renneker rectified the error of the initial response in not providing the most likely custodian, and we find no substantive violation of the Open Records Act on the part of the Sheriff's Office in the disposition of Ms. Kelley's open records 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 shall be notified of any action in circuit court, but shall not be named as a party in that action or in any subsequent proceeding.