Annotations for Decision

Lower courts properly found that the witnesses, victims, and uncharged suspects referred to in the police department’s arrest and incident reports, adults and juveniles alike, had privacy interests in addresses, phone numbers, social security numbers, and driver’s license numbers that implicated KRS 61.878(1)(a) given that citizens had more than a de minimus interest in the confidentiality of such information. Ky. New Era v. City of Hopkinsville, 415 S.W.3d 76, 2013 Ky. LEXIS 644 (Ky. 2013). Full Details

Newspaper’s unsupported speculation that the victims, witnesses, and uncharged suspects referred to in the police department’s arrest and incident reports may have shed light on police misconduct did not outweigh those citizens’  substantial privacy interests. Ky. New Era v. City of Hopkinsville, 415 S.W.3d 76, 2013 Ky. LEXIS 644 (Ky. 2013). Full Details

Since the privacy interests in not being identified by personal information was almost always substantial and the public interest in disclosure rarely so, the city’s categorical redaction of such information was a reasonable application of KRS 61.878(1)(a). Ky. New Era v. City of Hopkinsville, 415 S.W.3d 76, 2013 Ky. LEXIS 644 (Ky. 2013). Full Details