26-ORD-142 – Crazy Dave Media/Clinton County Sheriff’s Office

Opinion Content:

April 1, 2026

In re: Crazy Dave Media/Clinton County Sheriff’s Office

Summary: The Office cannot find that the Clinton County Sheriff’s
Office (“the Sheriff’s Office”) violated the Open Records Act (“the Act”)
because the Office is unable to resolve the factual dispute between the
parties.

Open Records Decision

On February 13, 2026, Crazy Dave Media (“Appellant”) submitted a request to
the Sheriff’s Office seeking (1) the Sheriff’s Office’s “Facebook page block, banned,
and restricted lists”; (2) “all employees[’] names, ranks, badge numbers, and yearly
salary”; and (3) “records associated with license plate cameras.” On March 4, 2026,
having received no written 1 response from the Sheriff’s Office, 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.”

Here, on February 13, the Appellant submitted a request to the Sheriff’s Office,
and he alleges he had not received a written response by March 4. On appeal, the
Sheriff’s Office asserts that it responded to the Appellant’s request on February 19,
2026. As proof, the Sheriff’s Office provides a copy of that response. 2

1 The Appellant states that the Sheriff called him regarding his request.
2 In its response, the Sheriff’s Office stated it does not possess records regarding a Facebook list, but
it further explained that its Facebook account does not have any individuals “listed as blocked, banned,
or restricted.” The Sheriff’s Office also stated it does not possess any records related to license plate
cameras. The Sheriff’s Office provided responsive records for the remaining portions of the request.

Thus, a factual dispute exists between the parties as to whether the Sheriff’s
Office responded to the Appellant’s request. The Office has previously 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 his request. See, e.g., 23-ORD-276 (factual
dispute as to whether a requester received a response to his request). Similarly, here,
the Office is unable to resolve the factual dispute between the parties as to whether
the Appellant received the Sheriff’s Office response.

A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating an action in the
appropriate circuit court under KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882 within 30 days from
the date of this decision. Under 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

Crazy Dave Media, Appellant
Ricky Marcum, Clinton County Sherriff
Michael Rains, Clinton County Attorney