Bowling v. Brandenburg, 1999-CA-000742-MR.
| Decision Date | 10 March 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 1999-CA-000742-MR.,1999-CA-000742-MR. |
| Citation | 37 S.W.3d 785 |
| Parties | Lawrence Edward BOWLING, Appellant, v. Ray BRANDENBURG, Chief and Custodian of Records, Police Department, City of Berea, Kentucky, Appellee. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Lawrence Edward Bowling, Berea, pro se.
James T. Gilbert, Richmond, for Appellee.
Before: COMBS, DYCHE, and McANULTY, Judges.
Lawrence Edward Bowling appeals from an order of the Madison Circuit Court denying his motion for summary judgment and granting summary judgment to Ray Brandenburg. Having reviewed the record and the applicable law, we affirm.
The Berea City Police Department received a 911 telephone call on December 16, 1998, seeking assistance from a caller who claimed to be Bowling's grandson, Kenneth Lawson. Lawson alleged that Bowling had threatened to kill his own wife, Lawson, and other members of Bowling's family. An officer was dispatched to Bowling's home, where both Bowling and his wife advised the officer that there was no problem. The police took no further action in regard to the call.
On December 18, 1998, Bowling requested and was provided a written record of the call. He also requested a copy of the recorded 911 call and on the advice of Brandenburg, the chief of police, Bowling put his request in writing on December 21, 1998, pursuant to KRS 61.872(2). After consulting with the city attorney, Brandenburg denied Bowling's request by letter dated December 23, 1998, citing KRS 61.878(1)(a), (h), and (i), with a brief explanation of each provision.
Bowling filed this action in Madison Circuit Court on January 8, 1999, seeking access to the tape pursuant to the Kentucky Open Records Act, KRS 61.870 to 61.884. He claimed that since the call pertained to him, he was entitled to a copy of the tape. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. Bowling's motion was denied and Brandenburg's motion was granted by order of the court entered on March 25, 1999. This appeal followed.
Bowling relies on KRS 61.884 to assert that he has a right to the tape of the 911 telephone call. KRS 61.884 states that "[a]ny person shall have access to any public record relating to him or in which he is mentioned by name, upon presentation of appropriate identification, subject to the provisions of KRS 61.878." KRS 61.878 reads in pertinent part:
(1) The following public records are excluded from the application of KRS 61.870 to 61.884 and shall be subject to inspection only upon order of a court of competent jurisdiction, except that no court shall authorize the inspection by any party of any materials pertaining to civil litigation beyond that which is provided by the Rules of Civil Procedure governing pretrial discovery:
(a) Public records containing information of a personal nature where the public disclosure thereof would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
. . . .
(h) Records of law enforcement agencies ... if the disclosure of the information would harm the agency ... by premature release of information to be used in a prospective law enforcement action .... Unless exempted by other provisions of KRS 61.870 to 61.884, public records exempted under this provision shall be open after enforcement action is completed or a decision is made to take no action;....
(i) Preliminary drafts, notes, correspondence with private individuals, other than correspondence which is intended to give notice of final action of a public agency;....
Brandenburg relies on these provisions, as well as opinions by the Attorney General interpreting these provisions, to support his argument that the tape should not be released to Bowling. Subsection (h), which does not prohibit the release of material after a decision has been made to take no action, obviously does not apply in this situation. We therefore turn our attention to the remaining two provisions.
Kentucky courts apparently have never considered whether an individual is entitled, under the Open Records Act, to a recording of a 911 call in which he is mentioned. The General Assembly has expressed that the policy of the Open Records Act "is that free and open examination of public records is in the public interest and the exceptions provided for by KRS 61.878 or otherwise provided by law shall be strictly construed, even though such examination may cause inconvenience or embarrassment to public officials or others." KRS 61.871. In Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government v. Lexington-Herald Leader Co., Ky., 941 S.W.2d 469 (1997), and Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychologists v. The Courier Journal and Louisville Times Co., Ky., 826 S.W.2d 324 (1992), the Court noted that the Open Records Act envisions a case-specific approach to determining whether access to records is appropriate by providing for de novo judicial review of agency actions, and requiring that the agency present proof to sustain its action. The Court further stated that "whether an invasion of privacy is `clearly unwarranted' is intrinsically situational, and can only be determined within a specific context." Board of Examiners, 826 S.W.2d at 328. Within these parameters, we turn to the case at hand.
Brandenburg cites Opinions of the Attorney General 91-91 to support denying the release of the tape to Bowling. OAG 91-91 concerned a request by a criminal defendant for any tapes which pertained to his arrest, including recordings of 911 calls. The opinion concluded that access to the tapes had properly been denied because the defendant sought to use the information in his post-conviction proceedings. Therefore, the conviction was not final and the records were exempt pursuant to then KRS 61.878(f) [now (h)],1 a provision inapplicable here. However, the opinion relied on the reasoning of a previous...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
AH Belo Corp. v. Mesa Police Dept.
...that limits on disclosure are needed to prevent substantial and irreparable public or private harm in appropriate cases); Bowling, 37 S.W.3d at 788 (same); cf. United States Dep't of State v. Wash. Post Co., 456 U.S. 595, 600, 102 S.Ct. 1957, 72 L.Ed.2d 358 (1982) (a purpose of the Freedom ......
-
N. Jersey Media Grp. Inc. v. Passaic Cnty. Prosecutor's Office, DOCKET NO. A-2016-16T1
...because they would become subject to . . . retaliation, harassment, or public ridicule." Id. at 371-72 (quoting Bowling v. Brandenburg, 37 S.W.3d 785, 788 (Ky. Ct. App. 2000)). Judge Coburn concluded that 9-1-1 calls should be confidential and not disclosed unless either the caller consents......
-
Cape Publications v. City of Louisville, 2002-CA-001659-MR.
...release of such information might constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 10. Lexington-Fayette, at 472. 11. Ky.App., 37 S.W.3d 785 (2000). 12. Id., at 13. 156 F.3d 673 (6th Cir.1998). 14. Id., at 685. 15. Zink, supra, at 828. 16. Palmer v. Driggers, Ky.App., 60 S.W.3d 591, ......
-
Wlex Communications v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, No. 2005-CA-002453-MR (Ky. App. 5/4/2007)
...that Searcy's request for material had been denied pursuant to relevant statutory and case law. Citing our holding in Bowling v. Brandenburg, 37 S.W.3d 785 (Ky.App. 2001), LFUCG noted that the public's right to know the contents of the 911 recording must yield to the legitimate privacy inte......