TL;DR: Public defender Ryan Dischinger asked Louisville for 24 hours of surveillance footage from a three-block radius. The city refused, citing "terrorism" concerns. Then they deleted the footage after 30 days. Kentucky's Attorney General ruled the denial violated open records law. Louisville's response? File a lawsuit to overturn that ruling. The city would rather go to court than let anyone know where its 200 cameras are pointed.
The Evidence That Disappeared
On September 2, 2025, something happened on West Jefferson Street in Louisville. An alleged burglary. Nothing unusual for a criminal defense case.
On September 30, public defender Ryan Dischinger filed a standard open records request: 24 hours of surveillance footage from cameras within a three-block radius of the scene [1]. Evidence that might help his client. Footage that already existed.
The next day, October 1, the city said no.
By December, when Dischinger was still fighting for access, the city had a convenient update: the footage no longer existed. Standard policy. 30-day retention. Already deleted [1].
The city refused to hand over footage, stalled until it was deleted, then told the public defender the evidence was gone. And that might have been the end of it, except Dischinger didn't quit.
The Attorney General Calls Foul
Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman reviewed the denial. In January 2026, he ruled that Louisville Metro had violated state open records law [1].
Simple enough: you can't deny public records requests for footage that was, at the time of the request, available. The city broke the law.
But Louisville didn't accept the ruling. They filed a lawsuit in Jefferson Circuit Court to overturn it [1]. Not to get the footage (that's gone). To establish a legal precedent that they never have to provide it.
This isn't about one burglary case anymore. It's about whether Louisville can permanently hide its surveillance infrastructure from the public.
The Terrorism Defense
The city's official justification for secrecy reads like a post-9/11 fever dream.
According to Louisville Metro, releasing footage would:
- Reveal camera locations
- "Compromise crime-fighting effectiveness"
- "Expose the city's vulnerabilities to terrorism"
- Require expensive camera relocation ($500-$1,000 per camera) [2]
LMPD Sergeant Matt Sanders defended the approach: "Disclosing exact locations would hand criminals a roadmap to avoid detection" [1].
Let's be clear about what we're talking about. These aren't covert surveillance operations. They're cameras mounted on poles in public spaces. Anyone who walks down the street can see them. The "secret" the city is protecting is that the cameras exist, something visible to anyone with eyes.
What Louisville Is Hiding
Louisville maintains nearly 200 surveillance cameras across the city, including an extensive network of Flock Safety license plate readers [2][3].
These Flock cameras don't just record plates. They capture make, model, color, and distinguishing features of every vehicle that passes. That data feeds into a national dragnet. Louisville police already share information with ICE through these systems [4].
When the local University of Louisville and University of Kentucky were asked about their Flock cameras, they disclosed locations without complaint [3]. Transparency wasn't a problem for them.
But Louisville Metro insists releasing any information about its network would somehow compromise public safety. Even though the cameras are on public streets. Even though they record public activity. Even though citizens have a right to know how they're being watched.
What the Critics Say
Michael Soyfer, a civil liberties attorney, cut to the point: "Secret policing is antithetical to our constitutional values" [1].
Michael Abate, representing the Kentucky Center for Investigative Reporting, was blunter about the AG's ruling on camera locations: "The decision assumes we live in a police state where the government can have cameras all over" [2].
Amye Bensenhaver, a former assistant attorney general who wrote Kentucky's open records law interpretation guide, noted the exemption being claimed was never meant for this. It's supposed to address burdensome requests requiring extensive staff time, not to protect "things other agencies have absolutely no problem releasing" [2].
The Bigger Pattern
Louisville isn't unique. Cities across America are deploying surveillance infrastructure while fighting tooth and nail to keep it secret.
The arguments are always the same: public safety, terrorism, crime-fighting effectiveness. The result is always the same: cameras watching citizens, citizens forbidden from knowing the details.
Metro Council members Anthony Piagentini and Tammy Hawkins have raised oversight concerns [1]. But the city's lawsuit signals the administration has no intention of transparency, even when ordered by the state's top law enforcement officer.
What Happens Now
The lawsuit works its way through Jefferson Circuit Court. Louisville is betting that a judge will give them what the Attorney General wouldn't: permanent legal cover to hide surveillance from the public.
Meanwhile, Ryan Dischinger's original request (footage that might have helped his client) remains unfulfilled. The evidence is gone. The cameras keep recording. And the city is in court arguing that this is exactly how things should work.
"Just as a citizen," Dischinger said, "I have an interest in knowing what our government is doing in terms of surveilling people" [1].
So does everyone else. Louisville disagrees.
References
- Louisville Public Media - Louisville Metro sues to keep surveillance records secret (February 17, 2026)
- Louisville Public Media - Louisville police can keep license plate camera locations secret, AG says (February 10, 2026)
- Louisville Public Media - U of L, UK use Flock license plate readers to monitor drivers (January 13, 2026)
- Louisville Public Media - Louisville police share data with national immigration dragnet (November 3, 2025)
Published: February 19, 2026