Request By:
[NO REQUESTBY IN ORIGINAL]
Opinion
Opinion By: Albert B. Chandler III, Attorney General; James M. Ringo, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether the Henderson County Detention Center violated the Open Records Act in its handling of Stacey Cabell's open records request for a copy of the Jail Stay, Head Count Report, for Cell # 113, from October, 1998 through December, 1998.
Roslyn Jackson, Lieutenant, Operations Officer, responding on behalf of the Henderson County Detention Center, provided Mr. Cabell with a numerical count of the inmates assigned to Cell # 113 during the time period specified by Mr. Cabell in his request. She stated that the County Attorney had advised that they could not breach the confidentiality of the inmates by releasing their names.
Mr. Cabell appealed the Detention Center's response, stating that he did not receive what he asked for. In his letter of appeal, he stated that he was not asking for any personal information, just the names of the persons that were in Cell # 113 on the dates listed. Mr. Cabell indicated that he needed to show that he was incarcerated with the victim of his crime.
After receipt of the letter of appeal and as authorized by KRS 61.880(2) and 40 KAR 1:030, Section 2, Charles R. McCollum, III, Henderson County Attorney, provided this office with a response to the issues raised in the appeal. In his response, Mr. McCollum provided the following information:
1. On September 22, 1999, Mr. Stacey Cabell made an open records request for the head count for cell # 113 of the Henderson County Detention Center for the period of October 1998 through December 1998. His request gave no other information.
2. Because the reports of the Henderson County Detention Center list all of the cells and the names of each individual in each cell and based upon his request, it appeared that Mr. Cabell wanted the number of people in his cell. Because the jail did not want to release personal data, the statistical data was released to Mr. Cabell.
3. Mr. Cabell, in his appeal, stated that he needed the above information because he was incarcerated with the victim of his crime. This information was not in his original request, nor was his victim's name stated.
Mr. McCollum further stated that if Mr. Cabell had made a request to see if a particular person was in his cell during that time period, that information may have been released, but not the totality of all the records for the three month period showing transfers and movement of all the prisoners.
It is the conclusion of this office that the Henderson County Detention Center's failure to produce the records identified in the request was attributable to the ambiguity of the request and thus cannot be deemed a violation of the Open Records Act.
Mr. Cabell indicated in his letter of appeal that the records he was seeking were those which would show that he was incarcerated with the victim of his crime in cell # 113. Mr. McCollum has indicated that, had Mr. Cabell asked for this information and identified the name of his victim, he might have received same. Accordingly, we urge Mr. Cabell to resubmit his request to the Detention Center and provide sufficient information in his request to enable the agency to identify and make available the records he seeks.
We do note, regarding the issue of an inmate's access to records identifying the inmates housed in a correctional facility, that in 99-ORD-161, at pages 2 and 3, copy enclosed, we stated:
While this office continues to ascribe to the view that records revealing the identities of inmates housed in correctional facilities cannot be withheld from ordinary persons exercising their rights under the Open Records Act pursuant to KRS 61.878(1)(a), or any other exception to public inspection, those records may be withheld from inmates. As a result of the amendments to KRS 197.025(2), inmates no longer have "the same right to inspect public records as any other person," at least as that right relates to records in the custody of the Department of Corrections. Simply put, Mr. Craig may only inspect records that pertain to him. With the exception of his own entry on the locator list, that list does not pertain to him. Pursuant to KRS 61.878(4), Kentucky State Penitentiary properly separated the excepted material and made the nonexcepted material available to him for examination. These actions, fully authorized by law, did not constitute censorship.
In 95-ORD-121, we recognized that KRS 197.025 applied to a county jail. There we held that the Bullitt County Jailer, acting as the designee of the Commissioner of the Corrections Department, may designate portions of the jail policy and procedures manual as confidential if the jailer determines their disclosure would constitute a threat to the security of the inmates, staff, the institution, or the public generally.
Accordingly, if the Detention Center determines that access to records identifying the inmates housed in a correctional facility constitute such a threat as described above, it may redact the excepted material and make nonexcepted material available for inspection. KRS 197.025; KRS 61.878(4). 99-ORD-161.
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating action in the appropriate circuit court pursuant to KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882. Pursuant to KRS 61.880(3), the Attorney General should be notified of any action in circuit court, but should not be named as a party in that action or in any subsequent proceeding.