Investigative Reports

Cited	Statutes	Annotation
2019 Ky. App. LEXIS 92	61.878	Although the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act precluded a university from releasing to a student newspaper unredacted education records contained in a Title IX of the United States Education Amendments of 1972 investigation file, the circuit court’s finding that all the requested records were exempt from disclosure was not supported by substantial evidence because some records were not directly related to any student, such as a camera manual, University policies, and scheduling notes. Kernel Press, Inc. v. Univ. of Ky., 2019 Ky. App. LEXIS 92 (Ky. Ct. App. May 17, 2019, sub. op., 2019 Ky. App. Unpub. LEXIS 905 (Ky. Ct. App. May 17, 2019). Link
2019 Ky. App. LEXIS 92	61.880, 61.878	Circuit court made an erroneous factual conclusion that all the records in the investigation file were covered by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) because although the university was prohibited from releasing for the Attorney General’s in camera review education records with unredacted personally identifying information, not all the records requested were education records, and FERPA did not prohibit their release. Kernel Press, Inc. v. Univ. of Ky., 2019 Ky. App. LEXIS 92 (Ky. Ct. App. May 17, 2019, sub. op., 2019 Ky. App. Unpub. LEXIS 905 (Ky. Ct. App. May 17, 2019). Link
2012 Ky. App. LEXIS 44	61.878	Proffer given to the Kentucky Office of the Attorney General relating to a company’s business practices was not exempt from disclosure under KRS 61.878(1)(h) because there was no showing that the disclosure would have harmed the agency. Lawson v. Office of the Atty., 2012 Ky. App. LEXIS 44 (Ky. Ct. App. Mar. 2, 2012), aff'd, 415 S.W.3d 59, 2013 Ky. LEXIS 640 (Ky. 2013). Link
City of Louisville v. Courier-Journal & Louisville Times Co.	61.878	Although KRS 17.150(5) provides for common remedies by establishing that “[t]he provisions of KRS Chapter 61 dealing with administrative and judicial remedies for inspection of public records and penalties for violations thereof shall be applicable to this section,” such provision does not automatically equate investigative reports relating to prosecutions (governed by KRS 17.150(2)) with those compiled for administrative adjudications (governed by subdivision (1)(f) of this section); these remain separate matters. Louisville v. Courier-Journal & Louisville Times Co., 637 S.W.2d 658, 1982 Ky. App. LEXIS 232 (Ky. Ct. App. 1982). Link
City of Louisville v. Courier-Journal & Louisville Times Co.	61.878	The investigative files of the internal affairs unit of a city police department were exempt from public inspection as preliminary under subsections (1)(g) and (h) of this section; this exemption did not extend to the complaints against a police officer which initially spawned the investigations. The public upon request had a right to know what complaints had been made and the final action taken by the chief thereupon. Louisville v. Courier-Journal & Louisville Times Co., 637 S.W.2d 658, 1982 Ky. App. LEXIS 232 (Ky. Ct. App. 1982). Link
Lexington v. Lexington-Fayette	61.878	County’s redaction of a suspect’s identity from a disclosed police investigation file was proper under circumstances in which the suspect was not charged with or arrested for the alleged rape investigated; although a newspaper maintained that the public had a legitimate interest in monitoring police conduct and in ensuring that the investigation was handled properly, the newspaper had been provided some 900 pages of documents concerning the investigation, and had never established or even maintained that these documents were insufficient to fully investigate the police conduct, and failed to show how disclosure of the suspect’s identity would have furthered such an interest under the facts of this case. The suspect’s intrinsic personal privacy interest outweighed the nebulously asserted public interest, and the KRS 61.878(1)(a) personal privacy exemption applied. Lexington H-L Servs. v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Gov't, 297 S.W.3d 579, 2009 Ky. App. LEXIS 51 (Ky. Ct. App. 2009). Link
Univ. of Ky. v. Lexington H-L Servs., Inc.	61.878	Circuit court properly affirmed an Attorney General’s opinion on an Open Records Act request that the audit documents at issue were subject to disclosure because the preliminary-records exception did not apply where a university took its final action based upon the information revealed during the audits, the audits were not prepared or conducted under the direction of counsel or intended to be disclosed only to counsel for the purposes of preparing legal advice, and the audit documents were not subject to the work-product doctrine since they were prepared in the course of the university’s normal business oversight of a clinic’s operation, and only remotely in anticipation of potential litigation. Univ. of Ky. v. Lexington H-L Servs., 579 S.W.3d 858, 2018 Ky. App. LEXIS 238 (Ky. Ct. App. 2018). Link

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.