Kentucky Supreme Court Affirms Open Records Act Exception
Kentucky Supreme Court Affirms Open Records Act Exception
The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed, on December 19, 2013, the state court of appeals’ affirmation of the circuit court’s finding for the city of Hopkinsville (the City) in a dispute with the news facility New Era, Inc., (New Era). A reporter for New Era, intent on resolving whether the Hopkinsville Police Department was responding to calls inconsistently, invoked provisions of Kentucky’s Open Records Act (ORA), KRS 61.870-884, requesting from the City arrest citations, police incident reports, worksheets, etc., involving stalking, harassment, or terroristic threats from January 1, 2009 through August 31, 2009. In response, the Hopkinsville City Clerk withheld some records involved with open cases and juveniles, and redacted from others personal information such as social security numbers, driver’s license numbers, telephone numbers, and addresses of victims, witnesses, and suspects. New Era filed for the excluded records that fell into the described set, and for unredacted copies of same. The circuit court ordered all qualifying records forwarded to New Era with the only redactions allowed being social security, driver’s license, and telephone numbers, home addresses, and juvenile’s names and identifying information. Both parties appealed.
The court of appeals upheld the district court’s decision.
In the instant action the Kentucky Supreme Court weighed New Era’s assertions that, first, the court of appeals construed the privacy exception with unwarranted latitude, especially regarding the balance sought between the individual’s right to privacy and the public’s right to governmental transparency, and, second, the city’s ‘blanket’ redaction policy was at odds with ORAs case-by-case wording.
The Kentucky Supreme Court analyzed the issue by citing case law pertinent to both views of the interpretation of ORA, holding that the release of what was essentially a fishing expedition for lack of substantial reason to infer wrongdoing was insufficient to overcome privacy interests. The court correctly identified the redaction employed by the city as ‘categorical’ as opposed to ‘blanket,’ redacting types of information that would in any case be redacted and held for the city.
Juvenile’s names and any information that could lead to identifying a juvenile were likewise held redactable. See: Ky. New Era v. City of Hopkinsville, 415 S.W.3d 76 (Ky. 2013).
Related legal case
Ky. New Era v. City of Hopkinsville
| Year | 2013 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 415 S.W.3d 76 (Ky. 2013) |
| Level | State Supreme Court |