25-ORD-413 – Karlyn Schnapp/Kenton County Police Department

Opinion Content:

December 18, 2025

In re: Karlyn Schnapp/Kenton County Police Department

Summary: The Office cannot find that the Kenton County Police
Department (“the Department”) violated the Open Records Act (“the
Act”) because the Office cannot resolve the factual dispute between the
parties.

Open Records Decision

On July 11 and 14, 2025, Karlyn Schnapp (“Appellant”) submitted two requests
for records to the Department. Both requests sought records related to a “sting
operation” in which the Department was involved. On November 20, 2025, having
received no written response 1 to her requests, the Appellant initiated this appeal.

Under KRS 61.880(1), upon receiving a request for records under the Act, a
public agency “shall determine within five (5) [business] days . . . after the receipt of
any such request whether to comply with the request and shall notify in writing the
person making the request, within the five (5) day period, of its decision.” According
to the Appellant, on November 20, 2025, he had yet to receive a response to both her
requests.

For its part, the Department states that it issued a response to both requests,
by email, on July 18, 2025. As proof, the Department provides a copy of a response
dated July 18, 2025. 2 The Office has consistently found that it is unable to resolve
factual disputes between a requester and a public agency, such as whether a
requester received a response to her request. See, e.g., 23-ORD-276. Similarly, here,
the Office cannot find the Department violated the Act because the Office cannot

1 The Appellant claims that a Department detective left her two voicemails related to her requests.
2 The Department also explains that its calls to the Appellant were meant to help facilitate its
delivery of responsive records to her.

resolve the factual dispute between the parties as to whether the Appellant received
the Department’s response to her July 11 and 14 requests. 3

A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating an action in the
appropriate circuit court pursuant to KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882 within 30 days
from the date of this decision. Pursuant to KRS 61.880(3), the Attorney General shall
be notified of any action in circuit court, but shall not be named as a party in that
action or in any subsequent proceedings. The Attorney General will accept notice of
the complaint emailed to [email protected].

Russell Coleman
Attorney General

/s/ Zachary M. Zimmerer
Zachary M. Zimmerer
Assistant Attorney General

Karlyn Schnapp
Stacy Tapke, Kenton County Attorney
Jill Stulz

3 Because this appeal was brought regarding the Appellant’s claim that the Department had failed
to respond to her request, the Office need not consider the adequacy of the Department’s response.