23-ORD-227
August 25, 2023
In re: Shawntele Jackson/Louisville Metro Police Department
Summary: The Office is unable to find that the Louisville Metro Police
Department (the “Department”) violated the Open Records Act (“the
Act”) when it did not respond to a request that it did not receive.
Open Records Decision
On July 5, 2023, inmate Shawntele Jackson (“Appellant”) claims he submitted
a request to the Department for “copies of any complaints, [or] disciplinary
investigation reports” regarding two of the Department’s officers.1 The Appellant
further specified his request included “any other documentation relevant to charges
of misconduct by” the officers. On July 26, 2023, having received no response from
the Department, the Appellant initiated this appeal.
When 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 his request on July 5 and the Department did not
respond to it. On appeal, the Department states it did not respond to the Appellant’s
request because it did not receive it.2 The Office has previously found that it is unable
1
The Appellant indicates that these officers were “on scene” during an “alleged murder
investigation” at a specific address on a specific date.
2
Because the Department has now received the request as part of this appeal, it has responded to
it. In its response, the Department states it does not possess any responsive records related to one
officer. As to the other officer, the Department states it located responsive records and will provide
them to the Appellant. But first, those records must be converted into a “readable format” because theto resolve factual disputes between a requester and a public agency, such as whether
an agency received a request for records. See, e.g., 23-ORD-195. Similarly, here, the
Office is unable to resolve the factual dispute between the parties or find that the
Department 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/ Matthew Ray
Matthew Ray
Assistant Attorney General
#335
Distributed to:
Shawntele Jackson #200020
Alice Lyon
Annale Taylor
Natalie S. Johnson
Nicole Pang
records are stored on cassette tapes, VHS tapes, and floppy discs. The Appellant did not contest the
Department’s response on appeal.