LOUISVILLE, Ky. (WDRB) -- WDRB News has filed a lawsuit against Louisville Metro Police for redacting the names of officers who were under investigation for misconduct revolving around an alleged alcohol and sex party at the homicide unit last year.
The Kentucky Attorney General's office ruled last month that while LMPD violated the state's open records law by redacting the names of officers who were interviewed about the Feb. 27, 2019, retirement party, the office found that police properly shielded the contents of witness interviews and the names of those accused of misconduct.
But WDRB has filed a lawsuit in Jefferson Circuit Court arguing the attorney general's office and Kentucky courts have "for decades" ruled that the public has a right to know about "allegations of misconduct against public employees, regardless of whether those allegations are substantiated during an internal investigation."
The Kentucky Attorney General's office, now run by Daniel Cameron, "jettisoned decades of its own on-point decisions in an abrupt, unacknowledged, and unexplained about-face that is contrary to law and entitled to no defense in this case," Attorney Michael Abate, who represents WDRB, wrote in the lawsuit.
And LMPD, "compounded its error by denying" a supplemental request for the complaint letter that spawned the investigation, something the agency is compelled to release, Abate argued.
The lawsuit is requesting a circuit court judge to overturn the attorney general's decision and force police to turn over the names of those accused of misconduct and the initial complaint.
The attorney general did rule the department improperly withheld surveillance video in denying an Oct. 30, 2019, request from WDRB News for investigative records into the retirement party of former homicide unit Maj. Todd Kessinger.
Police have said they have 30 days to appeal the ruling. The department does not comment on pending litigation.
Meanwhile, the River City Fraternal Order of Police has filed a counterclaim against WDRB, on behalf of officers.Â
Releasing the surveillance videos -- which would identify officers -- would "constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, exposing witness officers who were never suspected of involvement in improper conduct to public humiliation," according to the FOP suit.
The FOP is requesting that the videos and names of the officers be exempt from disclosure.
Two complaints to the city and department last March alleged officers drank in the homicide office at the retirement party, with some having to be driven home, and two officers had sex during the party. Officers were ordered not to talk about the party, according to the complaints.Â
About a month after the party, a person meeting with police about a grant proposal told them about the party, alleging there was drinking during office hours and some officers had to be driven home, according to records WDRB News received from the department.
An officer at that meeting wrote a letter about the complaint and gave it to Conrad. LMPD denied an open records request for the letter, saying the case is pending, even though it has been closed.
When WDRB responded that the news organization is clearly entitled to "the complaints which initially spawned the investigation," LMPD did not offer a new answer.
"LMPD's response was evasive and non-responsive," Abate wrote, arguing the department has "willfully" violated state law in withholding the records. If a judge finds LMPD was willful, he or she can force the department to pay fines and the news station's attorney fees.
The party began late in the morning and continued until the evening, according to the person, whose name was redacted by LMPD. The person also said officers were told by someone in the department not to discuss the party. And the person said officers in the homicide unit were fearful of retaliation by two people, whose names were also redacted.
In addition, an anonymous complaint to the city's ethics tipline made the same allegations and also claimed officers heard two people having sex in an office in the homicide unit.
An internal police investigation, however, concluded officers drank at a local bar before coming back to the homicide office, where no drinking occurred.Â
Police Chief Steve Conrad ordered an investigation last spring into claims of sexual conduct and drinking in the department's homicide unit during a retirement party.
One person interviewed by police claimed to have heard that an officer had to be driven home because he or she was so intoxicated. And other officers followed fellow officers who drove to make sure they got home safely, according to a summary of the interview.Â
Another person said he or she was told the party was so loud that some people left "because they did not want to be associated with the incident," according to the investigation.
The attorney general's office ruled LMPD did not violate the open records law by redacting the names of the officers who allegedly violated police policy at the party because they were "exempt as preliminary drafts that were not adopted by the agency in taking final action."
Several retired officers allegedly at the party declined to speak to the investigator, Maj. Frank Hardison. But dozens of current officers denied there was a party at all. They also said there was no alcohol consumption at the department during work hours or anyone having sex in an office, according to the internal investigation. They also told investigators they were not fearful of retaliation.
The investigation concluded there was no drinking or sexual activity or even a party at the homicide office.
Officers drank at a local bar and then some came back to the department just to talk, according to the investigation. When the conversation turned to former Sgt. Jon Lesher, who died in 2018, one officer became emotional and had to be driven home, Hardison concluded. The person had also been drinking, but it was before coming to the homicide unit, the investigation found.
A total of 54 people were interviewed by Hardison and "there was nothing found to support, nor substantiate, the allegations," according to the investigation summary. And because the allegations were "hearsay" and "second-hand," Hardison recommended that "no member of LMPD be specifically named as accused in this investigation."
In addition, Hardison proposed the investigation be categorized as a "General Inquiry" into allegations of drinking and sexual activity, with both charges being unfounded.
After WDRB News requested the names and transcripts for each officer and witness interviewed, LMPD declined, saying the "release of this information is considered invasion of personal privacy." And LMPD declined to provide other information requested, including emails and interviews saying the evidence was "preliminary." Conrad reached his decision solely on Hardison's summary and "without reviewing any other records contained within the investigation file," police said.
Because Conrad did not use this information to make his decision, LMPD properly withheld them as preliminary, the attorney general's office ruled.
The attorney general's office also ruled that the police officer witnesses were not accused of wrongdoing and "therefore they suffer no risk of reputational harm or public embarrassment for participating in an internal investigation."
But the officers accused of wrongdoing would face possible "embarrassment and stigma" and since they were "wrongfully accused of inappropriate sexual activity and alcohol use," they have a heightened privacy interest, according to the ruling, which found that LMPD properly withheld the names of the officers under investigation.
And the attorney general's opinion concluded the department showed no favoritism or bias during the investigation.
"The record shows that LMPD investigated in good faith, interviewed numerous witnesses and collected statements and evidence," according to the ruling. "As such, disclosure of the suspects' identifies is not necessary for an adequate appraisal of the investigation."
Copyright 2020 WDRB Media. All Rights Reserved.Â
