24-ORD-107
April 26, 2024
In re: Glenn Odom/Kentucky State Police
Summary: The Kentucky State Police (“KSP”) did not violate the Open
Records Act (“the Act”) when it withheld from inspection under
KRS 17.150(2) intelligence and investigative reports regarding a
criminal case in which the prosecution has not concluded.
Open Records Decision
Inmate Glenn Odom (“Appellant”) submitted a request to KSP for “a copy of all
tangible documents, statements, search warrants, photos, blood-alcohol test
warrants, DNA test results, etc.” related to a specific criminal case. In response, KSP
denied the request and cited KRS 17.150(2), which is incorporated into the act by
KRS 61.878(1)(l). This appeal followed.1
On appeal, KSP maintains that the records requested by the Appellant are
exempt from inspection under KRS 17.150(2). That statute exempts from inspection
“intelligence and investigative reports” until criminal prosecution is completed or a
determination not to prosecute is made. See id. If a law enforcement agency denied
access to a record under KRS 17.150(2), it must “justify the refusal of inspection with
specificity.” KRS 17.150(3).
Here, KSP explains it denied the Appellant’s request because the prosecution
related to the identified case has not concluded. Indeed, KSP provides proof that the
criminal case is scheduled for a jury trial beginning on October 7, 2024. The Appellant
1
KSP did provide the Appellant with a copy of the initial Kentucky Incident Based Reporting
System Report concerning the investigation, with personal information redacted pursuant to
KRS 61.878(1)(a). The Appellant has not challenged KSP’s redactions. Rather, he asserts only that
KSP should have produced additional records.acknowledges the prosecution has not yet concluded and claims he seeks these
records through the Act as an alternative to receiving them from the Commonwealth’s
Attorney.2 Because KSP has specified that the prosecution related to the criminal
investigation identified by the Appellant has not concluded, it has met its burden of
proof that the withheld records are exempt under KRS 17.150(2). See KRS 17.150(3).
Thus, KSP did not violate the Act when it denied inspection of the requested records
in this case.3
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/ Zachary M. Zimmerer
Zachary M. Zimmerer
Assistant Attorney General
#182
Distributed to:
Glenn D. Odom #219489
Samantha A. Bevins
Stephanie Dawson
Abbey Hub
Mitchel S. Hazelett
2
The Appellant indicates that KSP’s refusal to grant his request “would deny [him] due process of
law,” but the Appellant’s right to evidence in his criminal case is controlled by the Kentucky Rules of
Criminal Procedure, not the Act. See RCr 7.24(2); see also 22-ORD-059 (noting criminal defendants
are entitled to records pertaining to their case through the discovery rules applicable to criminal cases,
but not through the Act). A person who could obtain responsive records by using discovery rules in a
criminal or civil action cannot require a public agency to waive the Act’s exemptions because he or she
chose to submit a request under the Act instead.
3
Because KRS 17.150(2) is dispositive of the issues on appeal, it is not necessary to address KSP’s
argument that the records are exempt under KRS 61.878(1)(h).