23-ORD-189
July 27, 2023
In re: Roydale Holt/Russellville Police Department
Summary: The Russellville Police Department (the “Department”) did
not violate the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it issued a response
granting a request within five business days of receiving the request.
Open Records Decision
On June 11, 2023, inmate Roydale Holt (“Appellant”) submitted a request to
the Department containing four categories of records related to his criminal case.1 On
June 27, 2023, the Appellant initiated this appeal, claiming the Department had
failed to issue a timely response and to provide the documents he requested.
If an agency receives a request under the Act, it “shall determine within five
(5) [business] days . . . after the receipt of any such request whether to comply with
the request and shall notify in writing the person making the request, within the five
(5) day period, of its decision.” KRS 61.880(1) (emphasis added). Here, the Appellant
claims he submitted a request to the Department on June 2, 2023, and that it “failed
to respond within [sic] allotted time of five (5) days.” However, on appeal, the
Department asserts it did issue a timely response to the Appellant’s request. The
Department states that it received the Appellant’s request on June 15, 2023, and
provides proof that on June 19, 2023, it mailed its response stating it would grant his
1
Specifically, the Appellant sought: (1) all documents, emails, or reports related to the criminal
case; (2) all laboratory, forensic, or any other testing evidence; (3) all recorded statements and
interviews; and (4) all body worn camera footage.request once the Appellant prepays the applicable copying fee.2 See KRS 61.872(3) (b)
(requiring an agency to mail copies of records “upon receipt of all fees and the cost of
mailing”). To the extent the Appellant claims he never received the Department’s
response, this Office has found it cannot resolve factual disputes between the parties
to an open records appeal, such as whether the requester actually received the
agency’s response. See, e.g., 23-ORD-062; 22-ORD-024; 21-ORD-233; 21-ORD-163.
Thus, the Department did not violate the Act when it issued a response granting the
Appellant’s request within five business days of receiving it.
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating an action in the
appropriate circuit court under KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882 within 30 days from
the date of this decision. Under 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
emailed to OAGAppeals@ky.gov.
Daniel Cameron
Attorney General
s/ Matthew Ray
Matthew Ray
Assistant Attorney General
#281
Distributed to:
Roydale Holt #315214
Elizabeth Teel
Robert Nishibun
Todd Raymer
2
The Department states it copied the records to a USB drive that cost $10. Under KRS 61.874(3),
the applicable copying fee is the “actual cost” to reproduce the records. As of June 30, 2023, the
Department had yet to receive the $10 or any further communication from the Appellant.