24-ORD-057
March 8, 2024
In re: Sarah Little/City of Hodgenville
Summary: The City of Hodgenville (the “City”) violated the Open
Records Act (“the Act”) when it failed to properly invoke KRS 61.872(5)
to delay its production of public records.
Open Records Decision
On January 17, 2024, Sarah Little (“Appellant”) submitted two requests for
copies of “Body Camera Footage with Audio and police reports” related to two specific
incidents. On January 24, 2024, the City acknowledged receipt of her requests and
stated that the “records requested are not ready at this time.” The City further stated
that, “[d]ue to the time it takes to redact the sensitive information from the videos
requested it will take at least another week to prepare the documents.” The City
noted it would contact the Appellant when the records were ready to be picked up.1
On February 6, 2024, the Appellant initiated this appeal because she had yet to
receive the records she requested.
A public agency has five business days from the receipt of a request for public
records made under the Act to fulfill the request or deny it and explain why.
KRS 61.880(1). A public agency can delay its production of responsive records beyond
five business days if the records are “in active use, in storage or not otherwise
available,” but it must “immediately notify the applicant” and give “a detailed
explanation of the cause . . . for further delay . . . and earliest date on which the public
record[s] will be available for inspection.” KRS 61.872(5).
1
After the appeal was initiated, on February 13, 2024, the City stated it would provide all requested
records by the end of the day.Here, the City notified the Appellant on January 24, 2024, that, “[d]ue to the
time it takes to redact the sensitive information from the videos requested it will take
at least another week to prepare the documents.” However, the City did not
specifically invoke KRS 61.872(5) or notify the Appellant of the earliest date on which
the public records would be available. Although the City stated it would “take at least
another week to prepare the documents,” it failed to meet even that self-imposed
deadline to provide the records.2 As a result, the City violated the Act when it failed
to properly invoke KRS 61.872(5) to delay its production of public records.
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.
Russell Coleman
Attorney General
/s/ Matthew Ray
Matthew Ray
Assistant Attorney General
#054
Distributed to:
Sarah Little
Toni Burton
Jim Phelps
John Nicholas
2
On appeal, the City explains that its team handling requests under the Act has six employees with
limited manpower available to fulfill open records requests, and that because it rarely gets such
requests, it is unfamiliar with redacting videos using its wearable video system client. The City further
explains that, because the requested records relate to an “active criminal investigation,” it needed to
consult with the prosecutors to be able to release the “reports and videos” after redacting them.