Skip to main content

23-ORD-277

October 19, 2023

In re: John D. Brentlinger/Simpson County Sheriff’s Office

Summary: The Office cannot find that the Simpson County Sheriff’s
Office (“the Sheriff’s Office”) violated the Open Records Act (“the Act”)
when it did not respond to a request to inspect records it claims it did
not receive.

Open Records Decision

Inmate John D. Brentlinger (“Appellant”) claims he submitted a request to the
Sheriff’s Office on June 16, 2023, to obtain copies of records related to his criminal
case.1 He further claims he has received no response to his request. Accordingly, he
initiated this appeal.

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.” KRS 61.880(1). On appeal, the
Sheriff’s Office claims it never received the Appellant’s request. Rather, the Sheriff’s
Office received a request dated June 14, 2023, from a Joel D. Brentlinger seeking the
same records, to which it responded by providing copies of the requested records.2
The Office has routinely found it is unable to resolve factual disputes between the

1
Although the Appellant provides a copy of his certified mail receipt, the receipt shows only that
the request was mailed on June 20, 2023, not on June 16, 2023, which was the date of the request. The
Appellant did not provide the certified mail signature card that recipients must sign on delivery.
Accordingly, there is no proof in the record that the Sheriff’s Office received the Appellant’s request.
2
It appears Joel D. Brentlinger may be related to the Appellant. However, the request from Joel D.
Brentlinger had a return address located in Tennessee, and the Appellant’s return address is a
correctional facility in Ohio.parties to an appeal under KRS 61.880(2)(a), including disputes about whether the
public agency received the request. See, e.g., 23-ORD-071; 23-ORD-005; 22-ORD-216;
22-ORD-148; 22-ORD-125; 21-ORD-163. Accordingly, the Office cannot find that the
Sherriff’s Office violated the Act when it did not respond to a request it claims it did
not receive.

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

#418

Distributed to:

John D. Brentlinger # A 724798
Tracy Kent

LLM Summary
The decision in 23-ORD-277 concludes that the Simpson County Sheriff's Office did not violate the Open Records Act by not responding to a request it claims it did not receive. The decision cites several previous ORD decisions to support the principle that the Office cannot resolve factual disputes about whether a public agency received a 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:
John D. Brentlinger
Agency:
Simpson County Sheriff’s Office
Forward Citations:
Neighbors

Support Our Work

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