Skip to main content

23-ORD-248

September 15, 2023

In re: Telemachus Harrison/Estill County Judge/Executive’s Office

Summary: The
Office
cannot
find
that
the
Estill
County
Judge/Executive’s Office (“the agency”) violated the Open Records Act
(“the Act”) when it did not respond to a request it claims it did not
receive.

Open Records Decision

Telemachus Harrison (“Appellant”) claims that, on March 31, 2023, he
submitted a request for records to the agency.1 On August 13, 2023, having received
no response, the Appellant initiated this appeal.

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.” The Office
has previously found that it is unable to resolve factual disputes between a requester
and a public agency, such as, whether a public agency received a request for records.
See, e.g., 23-ORD-071.

Here, the Appellant claims he submitted a request to the agency on March 31,
2023, but it did not respond to his request. However, the agency states it did not
respond to the Appellant’s request because it did not receive it.2 As a result, the Office

1
Specifically, the Appellant requested copies of the City of Irvine Police Department and the Estill
County Sheriff’s policies and procedures on search and seizure of homes, vehicles, or other property.
2
The agency also states it is not the official custodian of the requested records. The agency has
instead provided the Appellant the contact information for the City of Irvine Police Department andcannot find the agency violated the Act because the Office cannot resolve the factual
dispute between the parties and therefore, cannot find that the agency 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

#359

Distributed to:

Telemachus Harrison
Donnie Watson
Jason Riley

the Estill County Sheriff, and it directed him to submit his request to those agencies. See
KRS 61.872(4).

LLM Summary
In 23-ORD-248, the Attorney General's Office determined that the Estill County Judge/Executive's Office did not violate the Open Records Act by not responding to a records request it claims it never received. The decision follows previous rulings that the Office cannot resolve factual disputes about whether a public agency received a records request.
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:
Telemachus Harrison
Agency:
Estill County Judge/Executive’s Office
Forward Citations:
Neighbors

Support Our Work

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