## Facts

- Fort Thomas police investigated a 2007 homicide involving Cheryl McCafferty and compiled an investigative file.
- In 2009, after McCafferty was convicted of first-degree manslaughter, a newspaper requested the “entire police file” under Kentucky’s Open Records Act (KRS 61.870–61.884).
- The City denied the request under KRS 61.878(1)(h), asserting disclosure would harm law enforcement by premature release of information for a prospective law-enforcement action.
- The City claimed the entire file was exempt because appellate and collateral review possibilities meant the prosecution was not “complete.”
- The Attorney General upheld the denial; the circuit court also upheld the City’s refusal and denied fees.
- The Court of Appeals rejected a categorical exemption and remanded for segregation of exempt and non-exempt material, while indicating fees should be awarded.

## Issues

1. Whether KRS 61.878(1)(h) permits a city police department to withhold an entire closed investigative file after conviction based solely on the possibility of future appellate or collateral proceedings.
2. What level of agency showing is required under KRS 61.878(1)(h) to justify nondisclosure, including whether a police department may rely on the same rationale applied to a prosecutor’s file in prior precedent.
3. Whether attorneys’ fees and costs should be awarded against the City for denying access under the asserted exemption.

## Decision

- The court held KRS 61.878(1)(h) does not create a blanket exemption for an entire police investigatory file after trial and conviction merely because further proceedings are possible.
- The court affirmed remand for a document-by-document (or category-by-category) review to separate exempt from non-exempt material and to allow redaction of exempt portions.
- The court required a more particularized demonstration that disclosure of specific records would cause the statutory harm.
- The court reversed the Court of Appeals’ implication that fees and costs should be awarded and rejected an award of attorneys’ fees against the City on this record.
- Disposition: affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

## Legal Principles

- Kentucky’s Open Records Act carries a presumption favoring disclosure; statutory exceptions are construed narrowly.
- Under KRS 61.878(1)(h), an agency must show that disclosure of the records at issue would harm the agency by premature release of information to be used in a prospective law-enforcement action.
- A police department may not withhold an entire investigative file categorically; courts must require segregation and disclosure of non-exempt, reasonably separable portions.
- Prior precedent upholding nondisclosure of a prosecutor’s litigation file during an active prosecution does not automatically justify withholding a police investigative file after conviction.
- Attorneys’ fees and costs are not automatic in open-records litigation; absent a sufficient showing warranting fees (such as willful or bad-faith noncompliance), a court may decline to award them.

## Conclusion

The Kentucky Supreme Court required a record-specific showing of harm before a police department may invoke KRS 61.878(1)(h) to withhold investigatory materials, ordered segregability review on remand, and declined to impose attorneys’ fees based on the City’s reliance on an expansive but not bad-faith reading of the exemption.


City of Fort Thomas v. Cincinnati Enquirer, 406 S.W.3d 842 (Ky. 2013)