Skip to main content

22-ORD-229

October 25, 2022

In re: Dennis Bell/McCracken County Coroner’s Office

Summary: The McCracken County Coroner’s Office (“the Coroner’s
Office”) violated the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it failed to
respond to a request for records within five business days.

Open Records Decision

On August 29, 2022, Dennis Bell (“Appellant”) attempted to deliver a request
for a copy of the McCracken County Coroner’s report about a deceased individual, but
found the door of the Coroner’s Office locked. The Appellant then attempted to deliver
the request to the County Judge/Executive’s office, but was told that he must take it
to the County Attorney’s office. According to the Appellant, personnel at the County
Attorney’s office made a copy of his request, but informed him that he must submit it
to the County Judge/Executive’s office. On his second attempt, the County
Judge/Executive’s office accepted the Appellant’s request.

On September 8, 2022, seven business days after delivering his request, the
Appellant telephoned the Coroner because he had received no response. The Coroner
advised him that she could not provide the requested records without authorization
from the County Attorney. This appeal followed.

Under the Act, a public agency has five business days to fulfill a request for
public records or deny such a request and explain why.1 KRS 61.880(1). On appeal,

1
This time may be extended if the records are “in active use, in storage or not otherwise available,”
but the agency must give “a detailed explanation of the cause . . . for further delay and the place, time,
and earliest date on which the public record[s] will be available for inspection.” KRS 61.872(5).the Coroner’s Office acknowledges receipt of the request and admits that no timely
response was issued.2 Therefore, the Coroner’s Office violated the Act.3

Through his appeal, the Appellant claims that the requested records “are being
unlawfully concealed from [him] or the county attorney is otherwise impairing their
availability.” This amounts to an allegation that “the intent of [the Act] is being
subverted by an agency short of denial of inspection, including . . . misdirection of the
applicant,” under KRS 61.880(4). However, the Coroner’s Office explains that the
County Attorney recently assumed the responsibility of responding to open records
requests on behalf of all county agencies, resulting in some temporary confusion that
caused the Appellant’s request to be “inadvertently overlooked” because it did not
reach the County Attorney. Under these facts, this Office finds that the internal
failures of communication with regard to the Appellant’s request did not constitute
subversion by “misdirection” under KRS 61.880(4). See, e.g., 21-ORD-228.

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 within 30 days
from the date of this decision. 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 proceedings. The Attorney General will accept notice of
the complaint e-mailed to OAGAppeals@ky.gov.

Daniel Cameron

Attorney General

s/ James M. Herrick

James M. Herrick

Assistant Attorney General

#331

Distributed to:
Mr. Dennis Bell
Sam Clymer, Esq.
Amanda Melton, Coroner

2
The Coroner’s Office argues that the violation of KRS 61.880(1) is “mitigated” by substantive
remedial measures allegedly taken within county government, or by the fact that the Coroner’s Office
eventually issued a response to the request. However, as stated in 22-ORD-205, the role of this Office
under KRS 61.880(2) is not to decide whether a violation of the Act is “mitigated,” but merely to decide
whether a public agency did or did not violate the Act.
3
On September 27, 2022, after the Appellant initiated this appeal, the Coroner’s Office issued a
response to the Appellant’s request and provided him a copy of all responsive records, which consisted
of a death certificate and Provisional Report of Death.

LLM Summary
The decision in 22-ORD-229 addresses a violation of the Open Records Act by the McCracken County Coroner's Office, which failed to respond to a records request within the required five business days. The decision discusses the procedural aspects and the responsibilities of the Coroner's Office under the Act, and references previous decisions to support its conclusions regarding the handling of the request and the interpretation of the Act.
Disclaimer:
The Sunshine Law Library is not exhaustive and may contain errors from source documents or the import process. Nothing on this website should be taken as legal advice. It is always best to consult with primary sources and appropriate counsel before taking any action.
Requested By:
Dennis Bell
Agency:
McCracken County Coroner’s Office
Forward Citations:
Neighbors

Support Our Work

The Coalition needs your help in safeguarding Kentuckian's right to know about their government.