Louisville Metro challenges attorney general ruling, seeking to keep downtown surveillance camera footage confidential in court

Dispute centers on open-records access to surveillance video tied to a downtown Louisville criminal case

Louisville Metro Government has filed suit in Jefferson Circuit Court seeking to block the release of surveillance records that officials argue would reveal where city cameras are positioned. The court challenge follows a Kentucky Attorney General open-records decision finding that the city violated the Open Records Act when it denied a request for video footage from downtown Louisville.

The request was submitted by public defender Ryan Dischinger for footage recorded on September 2, 2025, covering a multi-block area near West Jefferson Street. The footage was sought as potential evidence in a case involving an alleged burglary. In denying the request, the city invoked exemptions it said allowed withholding records when disclosure could threaten public safety or impose an unreasonable burden on the agency.

How the attorney general evaluated the city’s arguments

In an opinion issued December 15, 2025 (25-ORD-400), the Attorney General concluded Louisville Metro did not meet the legal threshold for the exemptions it cited. The opinion analyzed the city’s reliance on the statute addressing records whose disclosure would be reasonably likely to threaten public safety by exposing a vulnerability connected to a terrorist act, and also evaluated the city’s argument that complying would be unreasonably burdensome.

The decision found the city had not sufficiently shown how video of areas open to public view would create a “reasonable likelihood” of a terrorist act, as required by the exemption. It also rejected the argument that the request was unreasonably burdensome based on the city’s assertion that it would need to move cameras to preserve effectiveness, concluding that the city had not established it would be forced to overhaul its system or quantified the burden with clear and convincing evidence.

City’s lawsuit and the 30-day retention issue

After the December 2025 decision, Louisville Metro filed a lawsuit in Jefferson Circuit Court challenging the Attorney General’s determination. Separately, city records responses indicate the requested footage may no longer exist because the city deletes surveillance recordings after 30 days. The timing of the request and the city’s retention practice has become a critical factual point: Dischinger sought footage from September 2, 2025, and records correspondence reflects the footage was later described as erased under the retention schedule.

Broader conflict over surveillance transparency

The court fight unfolds amid wider disputes over access to information about Louisville’s surveillance footprint. Requests have sought information about several categories of technology used in public-safety operations, including:

• License plate reader cameras supplied by Flock Safety, with the city stating nearly 200 are installed.
• “MetroWatch” cameras, with the city stating about 767 are in operation.
• Privately owned cameras registered through the “Connect Louisville” initiative, with records reflecting 829 cameras registered.
• ShotSpotter gunshot-detection sensors, with the city stating it does not compile coordinates or addresses for sensor locations.

In a separate February 2026 open-records decision, the Attorney General concluded Louisville police could withhold the locations of Flock Safety license plate reader cameras. That outcome differs from the December 2025 ruling involving Dischinger’s request for downtown video footage, underscoring that open-records results can vary depending on the specific records requested and the legal exemptions asserted.

The Jefferson Circuit Court case will determine whether Louisville Metro may lawfully withhold the disputed surveillance footage and related records, and will further define how Kentucky’s open-records standards apply to modern city surveillance systems.