22-ORD-253
November 28, 2022
In re: Jennifer Morris/McCracken County Sheriff’s Office
Summary: The McCracken County Sheriff’s Office (“Sheriff’s Office”)
did not violate the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it did not provide
the subject of a body-worn camera recording with a copy of the recording.
Open Records Decision
On October 11, 2022, Jennifer Morris (“Appellant”) sent a request to the
Sheriff’s Office for a copy of “body cam footage” from an incident in which officers
responded to her home. She stated she needed the footage “for [her] attorneys.” In a
timely response, the Sheriff’s Office denied the request under KRS 61.168(5)(d),
stating she could view the footage “an unlimited number of times” at the Sheriff’s
Office, but could not obtain a copy of it. The Sheriff’s Office added that “any attorney
retained by [the Appellant] would be authorized to obtain a copy upon compliance
with the requirement set forth in KRS 61.169.” This appeal followed.
Under KRS 61.168(2), “the disclosure of body-worn camera recordings shall be
governed by the [Act]” unless KRS 61.168 states otherwise. Under KRS 61.168(5)(d),
if the footage “[i]s requested by a person . . . that is directly involved in the incident
contained in the body-worn camera recording, it shall be made available by the public
agency to the requesting party for viewing on the premises of the public agency, but
the public agency shall not be required to make a copy of the recording except as
provided in KRS 61.169.” KRS 61.168(5)(d) (emphasis added). Furthermore, “[t]he
requesting parties shall not be limited in the number of times they may view the
recording[.]” Id. Here, the Sheriff’s Office has offered to let the Appellant view the
footage “an unlimited number of times.” Having complied with KRS 61.168(5)(d), the
Sheriff’s Office is not required to provide a copy of the body-worn camera footage. See,
e.g., 22-ORD-178.KRS 61.169 allows the involved party’s attorney to obtain a copy of the
recording after meeting certain conditions, including the attorney’s acknowledgment
“that as an officer of the court, he or she may be subject to professional discipline or
other legal liability for a breach of an affidavit executed under this section.” KRS
61.169(1)(d)6. This condition, according to its own terms, can be fulfilled only by an
attorney who personally makes the request. Therefore, the Appellant’s assertion that
she needs the footage “for [her] attorneys” does not entitle her to obtain a copy of the
recording under KRS 61.169. Accordingly, the Sheriff’s Office did not violate the Act
when it denied the Appellant’s request for a copy of the footage.
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
#408
Distributed to:
Ms. Jennifer Morris
Sam Clymer, Esq.
Sheriff Ryan Norman
Ms. Jana King