Kentucky bill that could limit public access to law enforcement records speeding through legislature
A bill critics have warned could allow law enforcement to withhold records from Kentucky Open Records Act requests without proving how their release would harm investigations cleared the House with ease on Tuesday afternoon in a 78-21 vote.
It now moves on to the Senate.
Kentucky House Bill 520 would strike one word and add a handful more to the commonwealth's open records law.
But if enacted, critics argue, those tweaks in HB 520 would fly in the face of a Kentucky Supreme Court ruling last year and allow law enforcement agencies to arbitrarily withhold some records by not having to show how disclosure would harm an investigation or prosecution.
Law enforcement agencies currently do not have to turn over records 'if the disclosure of the information would harm the agency by revealing the identity of informants not otherwise known or by premature release of information to be used in a prospective law enforcement action or administrative adjudication.'
But HB 520, introduced by five Republican lawmakers, strikes the word 'would' in the law, replacing it with 'could pose an articulable risk' of harm.
Amye Bensenhaver, a former assistant attorney general who is the co-founder of the Kentucky Open Government Coalition, said the change from "would" to "could" would allow law enforcement agencies to skirt the open records law by citing speculative harm to investigations.
'Under current law, and under 'Shively,' you have to prove that there's a risk of concrete harm. Not hypothetical, not speculative,' she told The Courier Journal last month.
Kentucky law enforcement agencies, including the Louisville Metro Police Department, have routinely withheld records using boilerplate language citing open investigations.
However, in a landmark ruling last year, the Kentucky Supreme Court determined the Shively Police Department violated the open records law by withholding records related to a fatal police chase and citing the potential risk to their ongoing investigation when The Courier Journal requested them. While Shively Police cited the open investigation exemption, the Supreme Court found they failed to describe how the disclosure of documents would harm the investigation.
At the time of the ruling, Michael Abate, a First Amendment lawyer representing The Courier Journal in the case, called it a 'watershed' moment.
'It makes clear that agencies can't just say 'you don't get information because we're still investigating it' or 'there's some court case that is pending.' They have to do what the open records act says,' he said.
More: 'Watershed' decision: Kentucky Supreme Court says Shively Police violated open records act
The bill's main sponsor is Rep. Chris-Fugate, R-Chavies, who spent 22 years with the Kentucky State Police.
He said the intent of his legislation is to protect those involved with active cases, as well as the success of an investigation.
'In the drug world, when I was doing drug investigations, it could get a police officer killed or a confidential witness killed if they're not aware that their names have been given out,' he told The Courier Journal last month. 'That's all I'm trying to do — just protect the people that I worked with and that I worked for.'
Drug cases are so sensitive and dangerous, he added, that when he worked them, he would not discuss their details with colleagues unless they were part of the investigation.
'It was all confidential because it's too dangerous of a world and a job for everybody to know what's going on as far as investigations,' he said.
Fugate said he is fine with disclosing records after a case is over, and that law enforcement agencies must still explain the risk that handing over records would pose. Speaking to The Courier January in February, before the legislation received a hearing, Fugate said he was not familiar with the "Shively Police Department v. Courier Journal" Supreme Court decision.
Like Fugate, three of the bill's other four sponsors have law enforcement backgrounds.
On Tuesday, there was little discussion on the House floor about HB 520, save for Rep. Tina Bojanowski, D-Louisville, asking Fugate how the bill could impact confidential informants.
In response, Fugate said when he was doing drug investigations, "an open records request would have hindered my investigation, and it would have put the life of the confidential informant, or undercover police officer, in jeopardy because of the open records that would have been released."
Following the vote, Rep. Anne Donworth, D-Lexington, said she voted against the bill because of the "perception from the public that they might not be able to get access to law enforcement records."
She added that there were already law enforcement exemptions from the open records law.
"I don't believe this bill is necessary," she said.
HB 520 similarly coasted through the State Government Committee in just minutes last week, receiving only two 'no' votes and one abstention.
Nobody testified against the bill in its committee hearing.
Bensenhaver, the Kentucky Open Government Coalition co-founder, later wrote she was unable to speak against the bill after experiencing a 'freakish medical emergency' at the statehouse.
After watching video of the committee hearing, she said the coalition's concerns about the bill 'are greater than ever.'
And in a statement ahead of Tuesday's vote, Bensenhaver's Kentucky Open Government Coalition said: "In a word, HB 520 creates a laxer, looser, and less onerous standard for denying the public access to records in an open case."
The Kentucky Press Association, which represents newspapers across the commonwealth, also did not testify against the bill last week. However, in a Feb. 14 blog post, KPA President David Thompson said the organization had "concerns" about the bill and said it is "meant to overturn the Supreme Court's" ruling last year.
Meanwhile, the ACLU of Kentucky said they oppose HB 520, calling it an "open records loophole for law enforcement."
More: 1 dead after response from Louisville Metro Police's SWAT team in Shawnee neighborhood Tuesday
Reach reporter Josh Wood at jwood@courier-journal.com or on X, formerly known as Twitter, at @JWoodJourno.
This article originally appeared on Louisville Courier Journal: Kentucky public records bill would affect law enforcement records
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Musk deletes Epstein tweet after Trump rift
Elon Musk has deleted a tweet in which he alleged that Donald Trump was 'in the Epstein files'. The social media post was written on Thursday during a fierce war of words between the tech billionaire and the US president, after a dispute over Mr Trump's flagship spending Bill marked an abrupt end to their close alliance. As the disagreement escalated, Mr Musk also suggested that his former boss should be removed from office. 'The Epstein files' is a phrase colloquially used to describe intelligence the US authorities hold on Jeffrey Epstein, the paedophile financier who died in 2019. However, by Saturday morning, Mr Musk had deleted his post on X, in a sign the row could be winding down. Mr Trump also appeared to suggest he was moving on from the spat, telling reporters during a flight to New Jersey: 'Honestly I've been so busy working on China, working on Russia, working on Iran... I'm not thinking about Elon Musk. I just wish him well.' The row began when Mr Musk – who last week stepped down as head of the Department of Government Efficiency – criticised the president's upcoming Bill as a 'disgusting abomination' and claimed it would increase the national debt. Mr Trump retaliated by saying the billionaire was upset because one of his allies had not been chosen for a role in the new Nasa administration. The president also suggested Mr Musk was annoyed because the White House's 'big beautiful Bill' would end tax breaks for electric vehicles worth billions of dollars to his car company Tesla. 'He knew it better than almost anybody, and he never had a problem until right after he left,' Mr Trump said. The president later said, during an Oval Office meeting with Friedrich Merz, the German chancellor, that Mr Musk had 'Trump derangement syndrome'. The Republican later added that he was 'very disappointed' in the entrepreneur. However, Mr Musk was quick to hit back, alleging that the president had only won last year's election because of his support. 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election. Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate... Such ingratitude,' he wrote on X. The world's richest man then published his post about the president and the Epstein files – but provided no evidence to back up his claim. Mr Trump and Epstein ran in the same social circles in New York and were pictured partying together on various occasions in the 1980s and 1990s. Epstein killed himself in 2019 in a Manhattan jail cell while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. In February, Pam Bondi, the US attorney general, pledged to release the Epstein files. However, the 'phase one' documents that were released to a hand-picked group of conservative influencers contained information that was largely already in the public domain. As the row escalated, Mr Musk said he would decommission his Dragon spacecraft, which is used by Nasa to deliver and collect astronauts from the International Space Station. Mr Trump in turn threatened to cancel all the Tesla and SpaceX owner's government contracts. 'The easiest way to save money in our budget, billions and billions of dollars, is to terminate Elon's governmental subsidies and contracts,' he said. The president also reportedly considered selling or giving away the red Tesla car he purchased earlier this year. Tesla shares tanked as the rift intensified, amid investor fears that Mr Trump might hinder the roll-out of self-driving cars in the US, hitting the company's growth potential. Shares closed down 14.3 per cent on Thursday and lost about £111 billion, although the firm staged a partial recovery on Friday. An administration official claimed Mr Musk was 'clearly having an episode', while Steve Bannon, Mr Trump's former adviser, encouraged the president to initiate a formal investigation into Mr Musk's immigration status and have him 'deported from the country immediately'. As well as deleting the Epstein post, Mr Musk also appeared to walk back on his threat to decommission the Dragon spacecraft. When an X user suggested Mr Musk and Mr Trump 'take a step back for a couple days', the Tesla chief executive wrote: 'Good advice. Ok, we won't decommission Dragon.' However, the billionaire has continued to keep a poll pinned to the top of his X profile which invites users of the social media platform to vote on whether it is time for a new political party in the US. Mr Musk wrote on Friday night: 'The people have spoken. A new political party is needed in America to represent the 80 per cent in the middle! This is fate.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.


Black America Web
an hour ago
- Black America Web
Mayo Tears Or Real Fears: Supreme Court Rules For Straight Woman In Job Discrimination Suit
Source: The Washington Post / Getty In a unanimous Supreme Court decision that's already sending ripples through workplace law and DEI discourse, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Marlean Ames, a straight woman who claimed she was discriminated against for her sexual orientation after being passed over for promotion in favor of gay colleagues. According to reports, the high court rejected a previously accepted legal standard that required members of majority groups to meet a higher burden of proof when alleging discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The ruling, penned by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, made it clear that equal protection under employment discrimination law does not shift depending on whether the plaintiff is part of a historically marginalized group or not. 'Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority group plaintiffs,' Jackson wrote. And with that decision, what many had considered a quietly accepted court norm was struck down. The decision comes amid growing backlash against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs nationwide, with critics arguing such initiatives increasingly favor the historically excluded to the point of excluding everyone else. Ames' legal victory is likely to fuel further debate over whether we're entering a new phase of 'reverse discrimination' litigation—where being white, straight, or male can now be leveraged in civil rights courtrooms as the basis of systemic bias. But the facts of Ames' case, while legally persuasive to the Court, remain emotionally murky. According to the lawsuit, Ames had been with the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004, eventually rising to lead a program aimed at combating prison rape. In 2019, she reportedly applied for a promotion and was passed over for a lesbian colleague who allegedly lacked a college degree and had less tenure. Not long after, Ames was demoted, and her former position was filled by a gay man. Her complaint: she lost both opportunities because she was straight. The employer's rebuttal: she lacked vision, leadership, and—more subtly—the emotional intelligence to lead. One might read between those HR lines and detect the scent of a corporate 'Karen.' Source: The Washington Post / Getty Despite Ames' insistence that her sexual orientation was the problem, court filings from the state describe her office performance as the real issue, revealing that she was more of a poor team player than a persecuted worker. Officials reportedly described her as 'difficult to work with' and pointed out that the supervisors who made promotion decisions were straight, challenging the idea of an anti-hetero bias at the institutional level. Republican Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost defended the department's actions in court, saying Ames' rejection and eventual demotion were part of an internal restructuring process, with department leaders saying they felt she was difficult to work with, and lacked the vision and leadership needed for the position she sought. Still, the Court's ruling wasn't about whether Ames was discriminated against—it was about her right to argue that she was without being subjected to an unfair legal burden simply because she's straight. For that reason, this case now returns to the lower courts for another round and potentially a full trial. Legal scholars note that this ruling could open the floodgates to more lawsuits from majority-group plaintiffs who feel shut out by race- or orientation-conscious hiring and promotion practices. Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurring opinion, cited an amicus brief from the Trump-aligned group America First Legal, which has recently taken aim at major corporations like Starbucks and IBM for so-called reverse discrimination. But there's a deeper cultural layer here that can't be ignored. Was Ames truly the victim of anti-straight bias, or was she an underwhelming candidate looking for a convenient legal hook in the form of her colleagues' LGBTQ+ status? In an era where 'DEI fatigue' is a real thing in boardrooms and breakrooms alike, the line between legitimate grievance and performative fragility is increasingly blurred. Still, the Supreme Court's message is clear: Discrimination law is about equality of process, not identity advantage. No group, majority or minority, gets a shortcut or a steeper climb to their day in court. So while Ames may still lose her case, she'll now do so with the same legal footing afforded to any other claimant, and for some, that's progress. For others, it's the beginning of a new kind of fear. But let's be clear: whether Ames' tears are of mayo or merit, this ruling is a turning point and in today's polarized professional climate, it's only the beginning of a much larger reckoning over who gets to claim 'discrimination'—and who gets believed. SEE ALSO: California Teen Sprinter Disqualified For Celebrating State Title Win Donald Trump vs. Elon Musk: Feud Cools After Explosive Clash SEE ALSO Mayo Tears Or Real Fears: Supreme Court Rules For Straight Woman In Job Discrimination Suit was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Derek Dooley, former Tennessee coach and Vince Dooley's son, eyes GOP Senate run in Georgia
Derek Dooley, a former University of Tennessee football coach, said Friday that he is considering a Republican run for U.S. Senate in Georgia in 2026 against Democratic incumbent Jon Ossoff. The trial balloon shows how Gov. Brian Kemp's decision not to run for the seat has left Georgia Republicans looking for other options to face off against Ossoff, considered the most vulnerable Democratic incumbent up for reelection next year. [DOWNLOAD: Free WSB-TV News app for alerts as news breaks] Dooley, 56, said he would decide on a bid in coming weeks. 'Georgia deserves stronger common-sense leadership in the U.S. Senate that represents all Georgians and focuses on results — not headlines,' Dooley said in a statement. 'I believe our state needs a political outsider in Washington — not another career politician — to cut through the noise and partisanship and get back to real problem solving.' The announcement, first reported by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, came as other declared candidates stumped before the state Republican convention in the northwest Georgia city of Dalton. Among Republicans who have declared their candidacies are U.S. Rep. Buddy Carter, Insurance Commissioner John King and activist Reagan Box. Other Republicans who could run include U.S. Reps. Mike Collins and Rich McCormick, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and state Sen. Greg Dolezal. Attacks on Ossoff were among the most reliable applause lines during Friday afternoon speeches at the convention. 'Folks, President Trump needs backup, he needs backup in the Senate,' King said. RELATED STORIES: Gov. Kemp announces decision on Senate run in 2026, ending speculation Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene rules out run against Ossoff for Senate With Brian Kemp not running for Senate, which Georgia Republicans could challenge Jon Ossoff? Dooley has never run for office before. His appeal wouldn't be based on his career 32-41 record at Louisiana Tech and Tennessee, but his status as the son of legendary University Georgia coach Vince Dooley and Kemp's long ties to the Dooley family. As a teenager, Kemp was a frequent guest in the Dooley home, and roomed with Derek's older brother, Daniel Dooley, at the University of Georgia. Kemp has the most effective Republican political organization in Georgia, and he would likely give Dooley a big credibility boost. Kemp and President Donald Trump have been trying to agree on a mutual candidate to back for Senate in 2026, hoping to avoid the conflict that plagued Kelly Loeffler's unsuccessful run, where she lost to Democrat Raphael Warnock in a 2021 runoff. That, along with Republican David Perdue's loss to Ossoff on the same day handed control of the U.S. Senate to Democrats. Trump had preferred then U.S. Rep Doug Collins instead of Loeffler. Then in 2022, Trump anointed Georgia football legend Herschel Walker as the Republican nominee, but Warnock turned back Walker's flawed candidacy in another runoff. Kemp only swung in to help Walker in the runoff. The effort to screen 2026 candidates has already produced some results, with U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene saying she wouldn't bring her right-wing positions to the Senate campaign trail. Dooley would be far from the first sports figure to run for office. His father was frequently discussed as a possible candidate, but never took the plunge. But other coaches have gone far. Former Auburn University football coach Tommy Tuberville was elected to the Senate in 2020 from Alabama and is now running for governor. Former Ohio State University coach Jim Tressel is currently that state's lieutenant governor. And University of Nebraska coaching legend Tom Osborne served three terms in the U.S. House. Dooley walked on in football at the University of Virginia and earned a scholarship as a wide receiver. He earned a law degree from the University of Georgia and briefly practiced law in Atlanta before working his way up the college coaching ladder, becoming head coach for three years at Louisiana Tech and then moving on to Tennessee. Dooley recorded three consecutive losing seasons in Knoxville before he was fired in 2012 after losing to in-state rival Vanderbilt. After that, he has worked as an assistant coach for the NFL's Miami Dolphins and Dallas Cowboys, the University of Missouri and the New York Giants. Most recently, Dooley was an offensive analyst with the University of Alabama. [SIGN UP: WSB-TV Daily Headlines Newsletter]