24-ORD-135
June 12, 2024
In re: Makeda Charles/Louisville Regional Airport Authority
Summary: The Louisville Regional Airport Authority (“the Authority”)
violated the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it initially denied a
request because it had previously provided the requested records. The
Authority did not violate the Act when it denied a request for records
because the requester is not a resident of the Commonwealth.
Open Records Decision
In May 2024, Makeda Charles (“Appellant”) submitted two requests to the
Authority seeking “the original police report” regarding a specific incident, “the name
of the Transportation Security Administration employee” who spoke to her, the
identity of “the agency that employees airport police,” and a specific officer’s body
camera footage. In a timely response to both requests, the Authority referred the
Appellant to a previous record response it issued on April 6, 2024, which stated the
Authority had provided the Appellant with all records she was seeking, and denied
the requests because the Authority had previously provided records that “contain all
the information you claim to seek.” This appeal followed.
The Authority’s original response denied the request because “[a]ll requested
records have been provided to you and those records . . . contain all the information
you claim to seek.” In essence, the Authority claims it is not required to fulfill a
request it had previously granted. That argument, however, is grounded upon
KRS 61.872(6), which requires the Authority to prove by “clear and convincing
evidence” that the Appellant intended to disrupt its essential functions by making
repeated requests, or that the request is unreasonably burdensome. See 23-ORD-180.
The Authority has not made such a showing here. Thus, the Authority’s original
response violated the Act.On appeal, the Authority now claims the request was properly denied because
the Appellant does not qualify as a “resident of the Commonwealth” under
KRS 61.870(10). Under KRS 61.872(2)(a), only a “resident of the Commonwealth shall
have the right to inspect public records.” The Act provides seven ways in which a
person may qualify as a “resident of the Commonwealth.” See KRS 61.870(10). The
term includes an individual residing in the Commonwealth, a domestic business
entity, a foreign business entity registered with the Secretary of State, a person “that
is employed and works at a location or locations within the Commonwealth,” a person
or business that owns real property in the Commonwealth, or any person “that has
been authorized to act on behalf of” one of these individuals. KRS 61.870(10). A
“resident of the Commonwealth” also includes a “newsgathering organization” as
defined in KRS 189.635(8)(b)1.a.–e. Id.
Here, the Appellant says she qualifies as a resident of the Commonwealth
because she “traveled to Kentucky as a tourist,” because she was incarcerated in a
Kentucky jail for a period of time ending in January 2023, because she is on staff at
“Joshua Media Ministries International” which is “registered to do business online in
Kentucky,” and because she purchased a ticket from an airline . . . at Muhammad Ali
Airport.” None of these statements demonstrate that the Appellant qualifies as a
“resident of the Commonwealth” under KRS 61.870(10). Although the Appellant says
she was a resident of the Commonwealth while incarcerated, her requests were
submitted to the Authority in May 2024. Thus, she has not stated that she was an
“individual residing in the Commonwealth” at the time she made her requests.
KRS 61.870(10)(a). Next, the Appellant states she works for a business that is
“registered to do business online in Kentucky.” However, only an individual who
“works at a location or locations within the Commonwealth” qualifies as a “resident
of the Commonwealth.” KRS 61.870(1)(d) (emphasis added). The Appellant does not
state that she works at “locations within the Commonwealth,” and therefore, does not
qualify as a resident of the Commonwealth under KRS 61.870(10)(d). Finally, the
Appellant’s statements that she traveled to Kentucky as a tourist and purchased an
airline ticket at Louisville Muhammad Ali International Airport do not qualify her as
a resident of the Commonwealth under KRS 61.870(10). Accordingly, the Authority
did not violate the Act by denying the Appellant’s request because she is not a
“resident of the Commonwealth” under 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 inany 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
#241
Distributed to:
Makeda Charles
Natalie Ciresi Chaudoin
Brenda D. Perry
Louisville Regional Airport Authority, Open Records Unit