26-ORD-188 – Jennifer Simpson/Kentucky State Police

Opinion Content:

May 1, 2026

In re: Jennifer Simpson/Kentucky State Police

Summary: The Kentucky State Police (“KSP”) did not violate the Open
Records Act (“the Act”) when it did not provided records it does not
possess. The Office cannot resolve the dispute between the parties about
the content of the records KSP did provide.

Open Records Decision

Jennifer Simpson (“the Appellant”) submitted a records request to KSP seeking
records related to her “Internal Affairs complaint,” which she submitted on February
20, 2026. 1 In response, KSP provided the Appellant with four of its internal policies
related to disciplinary actions, a copy of her complaint, and KSP’s response to her
complainant. KSP explained that these were “all existing, responsive records” it
located during its search. This appeal followed.

The Appellant alleges that KSP failed to provide its policy establishing the
“one-year deadline for filing an Internal Affairs complaint,” and otherwise failed to
provide all records related to her complaint.

First, KSP asserts that it did provide the Appellant with the policy setting forth
the “one-year deadline for filing an Internal Affairs complaint.” As proof, it identifies
General Order AM-E-1 2 as the policy setting forth the deadline, and it further
explained where in the order that information can be found. Ultimately, the parties

1 More specifically, she requested copies of: (1) the KSP policy “establishing a one-year deadline for
filing an Internal Affairs complaint”; (2) records “referencing or supporting the statement in the denial
letter that ‘this matter was fully addressed through the appropriate administrative process’”; (3)
“supervisory reviews, administrative reviews, or internal assessments conducted regarding” the
complained about conduct; (4) “investigative summaries, findings, or internal determinations
regarding whether the troopers’ actions complied with [KSP] policies”; and (5) “correspondence, emails,
or internal communications related to the decision to deny [the Appellant’s] Internal Affairs
complaint.”
2 The Appellant provided the Office with a copy of this policy in her original appeal submission.

disagree regarding the content of the provided policy. The Office cannot
resolve factual disputes between a requester and a public agency about the content of
the records produced. See, e.g., 26-ORD-017; 22-ORD-246; 22-ORD-010; 19-ORD-083;
03-ORD-061; OAG 89-81. Here, therefore, the Office cannot resolve the factual
dispute between the parties or find that KSP violated the Act.

Regarding the remaining parts of the Appellant’s request, KSP maintains that
it has provided all responsive records it possesses. Once a public agency states
affirmatively that a record does not exist, the burden shifts to the requester to make
a prima facie case that the requested record does or should exist. See Bowling v.
Lexington–Fayette Urb. Cnty. Gov’t, 172 S.W.3d 333, 341 (Ky. 2005). If the requester
makes a prima facie case that the record does or should exist, then the public agency
“may also be called upon to prove that its search was adequate.” City of Fort Thomas
v. Cincinnati Enquirer, 406 S.W.3d 842, 848 n.3 (Ky. 2013) (citing Bowling, 172
S.W.3d at 341). A requester’s bare assertion that a public agency should or must
possess the requested records is not adequate to make a prima facie showing that the
agency does, in fact, possess the records. See, e.g., 22-ORD-040.

Here, the Appellant alleges that KSP has not provided her with all responsive
records. But the Appellant does no more than assert that additional records exist.
This bare assertion does not make a prima facie case that KSP does or should possess
additional records. Moreover, on appeal, KSP specifically explains that it possesses
no “emails or other communications that discuss the purported denial” of the
Appellant’s complaint, nor does it possess “any investigative summaries, supervisory
reviews, or other documents” related to the described incident “because no [Internal
Affairs] investigation was conducted.” As such, the Appellant has done no more than
allege that additional records exist. She therefore fails to make a prima facie case
that additional records exist. Accordingly, the Office cannot find that KSP violated
the Act by not providing records it does not possess.

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

Jennifer Simpson, Appellant
Sara Talarigo
Charles Bates
Captain Bradly Stotts
Sgt. Zack Morris
Emmalie K. Hankinson, Supervisor, Public Records Branch,
Kentucky State Police
Jonathan Courtwright, Kentucky State Police
Ann Smith, Executive Staff Advisor, Justice
Nathan Goens
Lydia Kendrick, Kentucky State Police, Records Custodian
Caitlyn Clark