involved do not wish to disseminate, clearly implicate privacy concerns. Our courts have held, accordingly, that, in the absence of some substantial countervailing public purpose, records identifying or pertaining to identifiable witnesses, victims, and uncharged suspects of crimes or other statutory violations generally may not be disclosed. Bd. of Examiners, (witnesses who sought treatment from psychologist); Cape Publications v. The City of Louisville, 147 S.W.3d 731 (Ky.App.2003) (rape victims); Lexington H-L Services, Inc. v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, 297 S.W.3d 579 (Ky.App.2009) (uncharged rape suspect); see also, United States Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 780, 109 S.Ct. 1468, 103 L.Ed.2d 774 (1989) (<HOLDING>). Lawson’s proffer, however, as the trial court
holding that every citizen has a constitutional right of privacy in his or her medical records holding that constitutional right of privacy does not apply to medical records holding as a categorical matter that a third partys request for law enforcement records or information about a private citizen can reasonably be expected to invade that citizens privacy recognizing privacy interest in medical records requested under freedom of information act holding constitutional a tax on a private citizens interest in housing on government property received as part of the private citizens compensation