23-ORD-218
August 16, 2023
In re: Sarah Teague/Kentucky State Police
Summary: The Kentucky State Police (“KSP”) violated the Open
Records Act (“the Act”) when it failed to respond to a request for copies
of public records within five business days of receiving it. However, the
Office cannot resolve the factual dispute of whether all responsive
records have since been provided, and it cannot adjudicate ancillary
questions of law in an appeal brought under the Act.
Open Records Decision
On May 25, 2023, Sarah Teague (“the Appellant”) emailed a request to KSP for
“any [and] all records in [the] KSP-41 file” for her daughter’s case. Having received
no response, the Appellant emailed her request to KSP again on June 17, 2023. Then,
on June 30, 2023, she sent another email to KSP “rephrasing the request and adding
to it” because KSP “never responded.” On July 12, 2023, KSP responded to the
Appellant’s June 30 request, noting it had been received on July 3. In its response,
KSP stated it had previously given the Appellant all responsive records, but provided
the records again. This appeal followed.
Under KRS 61.880(1), upon receiving a request for records under the Act, a
public agency “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.” Here, the
Appellant claims KSP did not respond to her requests of May 25 or June 17, 2023.
KSP does not dispute this claim. Moreover, although KSP received the Appellant’s
third request on July 3, it did not respond until July 12, or six business days later.
Accordingly, KSP violated the Act.On appeal, the Appellant claims KSP has not provided all responsive records.
She also makes various allegations about the way KSP investigated her daughter’s
disappearance in 1995. In response, KSP claims to have provided all responsive
records in the case file “multiple times” and insists no additional records exist.1 The
Office has routinely stated that it cannot resolve factual disputes between a requester
and an agency about whether all records responsive to a request have been provided.
See, e.g., 23-ORD-171 (involving these same parties but involving a different request);
22-ORD-261; 22-ORD-010; 19-ORD-083; 16-ORD-091; OAG 89-81. Furthermore, the
Office cannot adjudicate questions unrelated to the Act in an appeal brought under
KRS 61.880(1), such as whether KSP’s investigation was proper or complete. See, e.g.,
23-ORD-166 n. 2; 23-ORD-048 n.1; 22-ORD-244 n.3. Thus, other than its failure to
respond timely to the Appellant’s requests, the Office cannot find that KSP violated
the Act.
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/ Marc Manley
Marc Manley
Assistant Attorney General
#319
Distributed to:
Sarah Teague
Michelle Harrison
Stephanie Dawson
1
KSP also cites a line of decisions dating back to 1995 standing for the proposition that an agency
is not required to respond to duplicative requests. The Office recently called into question that line of
decisions in 23-ORD-180. However, because KSP did not deny the Appellant’s request on this basis,
and instead provided responsive records to her again, the Office declines to address this issue further.