Senate Bill 63 would protect first responders from frivolous open records requests
Recent editorial opinions oppose Senate Bill 63, filed by Senator Danny Carroll, which protects police, judges, prosecutors and first-responders’ private information, such as their home address, from being disclosed through open record response. Those opinions suggest this bill erodes the open records law, hides important information, makes record custodians fearful of making the mistake of releasing private information and limits the public’s ability to check on government. Those opinions are scare tactics and untrue. Like me, take time to read the bill at legislature.ky.gov. This only exempts specific pieces of a first-responder’s private information from public disclosure and holds government agencies accountable for failing to do so. Public safety agencies already protect their employee’s personal information from disclosure, but I know from experience that other branches of government have refused to do likewise because the elected officials leading those agencies are not interested in going to the effort to protect the information. Senate Bill 63 prevents this from occurring and it deserves your support.
The newspaper has never covered unethical uses of these laws, so allow me to inform you based on my experience responding to requests for over 20 years. Open record laws serve a legitimate purpose and allow the public to obtain government records presumably for the lofty purpose of keeping government in check. The reality is that it was rare that I received a records request with that purpose in mind. Many record requests include the reason for the request, though a reason isn’t required. Most requests pertained to the requester’s personal business, such as a copy of a police report. I had no issue releasing records open for inspection, even if the content might be embarrassing for the agency. However, I did have a problem with the many instances of people sticking their nose into another person’s business and I could do little to stop it. Examples include inmates seeking information about or photos of their victim; records about an ex-relationship; people with an axe to grind seeking records about their family, neighbors, or co-workers; requests for graphic investigative reports and photos for a novel or TV show; attorneys trying to by-pass court discovery process or find new clients; alarm companies seeking lists of burglary victims; private detectives trying to find dirt for a client, etc.
In my career I received creepy requests that were possibly stalking, clearly helicopter parenting, or seemingly retributive towards another person. If an open record request is submitted about you, you won’t know it. Open record laws don’t protect you from those who want to snoop into your interactions with government. Such intrusions have a chilling effect on those who want to report their victimization but value their privacy more. I recall many instances when notable people didn’t report relatively minor crimes, reported crime anonymously, or provided police another’s contact information to protect privacy.
Among record requests from professionals, examples of unethical requests included attorneys who knew a public record was exempt from inspection but would threaten me with a subpoena to bring records to court, unless I immediately release the record and in its entirety. Countless times reporters requested records that they never bothered to pick up. I recall an instance where a lawyer filed record requests with her stated intent to harass a detective and she was eventually barred from filing further requests by the Attorney General. Another attorney was similarly barred from submitting further requests after submitting frivolous record requests on behalf of her client, which required police to compile thousands of records. She and her client spent only minutes looking at those records and paid 10 cents for a copy of a meaningless record. Taxpayers pay for these abuses.
Officers working marches last year received taunts and verbal threats that were captured on video, including threats to find where officers live and harm their families. An editor supported protestors by describing their police-baiting and intimidation as mere “salty language.” With know-how, a responder’s home address could be obtained from agencies that choose not to protect first-responders’ private information. Senate Bill 63 won’t stop unethical use of open record laws, but it does protect first-responder’s and their families, and it deserves your support.
Robert Stack is retired Assistant Chief with the Lexington Police Department, retired Director of Enhanced 911 and former Open Records Custodian for both agencies.