Opinion
Opinion By: Albert B. Chandler III, Attorney General; James M. Ringo, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The issue presented in this appeal is whether the Luther Luckett Correctional Complex and the Department of Corrections violated the Open Records Act in their responses to the open records requests of Willie James Stewart. For the reasons that follow, we conclude they did not.
On January 29, 2001, Willie James Stewart, an inmate at Luther Luckett Correctional Complex (LLCC), LaGrange, Kentucky, submitted an open records request to the Department of Corrections asking "to inspect all records" in the "Guard and protection of the Department" that were his "own personal records."
By form letter dated February 6, 2001, Carol Black, Records Supervisor, LLCC, responded to Mr. Stewart's request, checking the following box:
Your request has been received, it is too broad and overly vague. In accordance with KRS 61.872(2), it is requested that you specify the document(s) you are requesting, i.e., by name, form #, indictment #, and/or other identifying information.
After Mr. Stewart resubmitted a second request, Ms. Black, on February 7, 2001 met with him to clarify the records he was seeking. In a Memorandum, dated February 8, 2001, Ms. Black advised him:
As discussed when I met with you yesterday, Wednesday, February 7, 2001, information you are requesting through your Request for Inspection of Records is not in your institutional file. After talking to you regarding this matter, I believe you are referring [to] the Parole Board files. If that is the case, you will need to contact them.
In your request you also mention Medical Records, as I stated in our meeting you do not have sufficient funds available to cover the cost of the copies. In accordance with KRS 61.874(1), your money must show on your account before we can release the copies. If you wish to review your institutional medical file, please submit request stating such.
In accordance with KRS 61.872(2), it is requested that you be more specific in the document(s) you are requesting, i.e., form number, indictment number, and/or other identifying information.
If I can be of further help, please advise.
Subsequent to receipt of Ms. Black's Memorandum, Mr. Stewart, by letter dated February 12, 2001, submitted an open records request asking to inspect records in the custody of the Department's Central Office in Frankfort, Kentucky. Mr. Stewart requested to inspect his Presentence/Postsentence Investigation Report (PSI); crime victim impact statements; all records in the Department with his name on them, a request to view his psychological or medical records, court records, petitions, records on the Kentucky Offender Online Lookup System (KOOL) as it pertained to him, all comment and suggestions to Corrections Webmaster, and records related to "The Kentucky Department of Corrections: Two Major Programs," found on Kentucky Corrections' homepage.
By letter dated February 15, 2001, Tamela Biggs, Staff Attorney, Department of Corrections, responded to Mr. Stewart's request, advising in relevant part:
Your request to Central Office was forwarded to me for review and response. As a preliminary matter, your request to inspect documents in the possession of Central Office staff is denied. You may only request inspection of records at the institution in which you are currently housed. In both 95-ORD-105 and 96-ORD-70, the Attorney General stated, in part:
Since you have requested the opportunity to inspect documents in a facility other than the one in which you are housed, you may not do so. You may, however, upon payment of the appropriate fee, obtain copies of non-exempt public records.
We are asked to determine whether the responses of the Department violated the Open Records Act. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the responses of the Department were consistent with the requirements of the Open Records Act and prior decisions of this office and, thus, did not constitute a violation of the Act.
We address first Ms. Black's response at LLCC to Mr. Stewart's request "to inspect all records" in the "Guard and protection of the Department." Ms. Black's response was appropriate, as the request for "all records" is vague and overly broad. The denial of a request to inspect the complete institutional file of an inmate was proper, as requests to inspect personnel files must specify the particular documents within such files to be inspected. 97-ORD-66; OAG 85-88.
We also find Ms. Black properly responded to Mr. Stewart's request to inspect letters that members of the public had written about him to the Parole Board. She informed the appellant that he would have to contact the Board in order to obtain access to those documents because these would not be maintained in his institutional record. KRS 61.872(4) directs:
If the person to whom the application is directed does not have custody or control of the public record requested, that person shall notify the applicant and shall furnish the name and location of the official custodian of the agency's public records.
As noted above, Mr. Stewart was properly advised the records he was seeking were in the Parole Board files and he would have to address his request for those records to the Board.
Mr. Stewart was also properly advised that in order to receive copies of the records, he must have sufficient funds in his inmate account to pay for them. KRS 61.872(3)(b) states that a public agency shall release copies of records "upon receipt of all fees." KRS 61.874(1) provides:
When copies are requested, the custodian may require a written request and advance payment of the prescribed fee, including postage where appropriate.
This statute authorizes public agencies to require advance payment of copying fees. Because Mr. Stewart's inmate account did not contain sufficient funds to cover the cost of copies when he submitted his request, LLCC could properly exercise its policy of requiring inmates to prepay for copies of records. KRS 61.872(3)(b) and KRS 61.874(1) contain no provision for waiver of the prepayment requirement for inmates. We conclude it was entirely proper for the facility to require prepayment and to enforce its standard policy relative to assessment of charges to inmate accounts. 00-ORD-225.
Mr. Stewart was also informed that if he wished to inspect his institutional medical file he should submit a request stating so. In a supplemental response, dated February 19, 2001, Ms. Biggs advised that LLCC had set up a time for Mr. Stewart to view his medical records and he refused to review the records, alluding to his appeal pending before this office. LLCC complied with the Open Records Act by making the medical files available for his inspection. Moreover, since these records were made available for inspection, we find the appeal is moot as to those records. 40 KAR 1:030, Section 6.
We next address Mr. Stewart's requests for records from Central Office. Ms. Biggs denied Mr. Stewart's request to inspect records in possession of the Central Office. She advised him that he could only inspect records at the institution at which he was confined. She did inform him, however, that upon payment of the appropriate fee, he could obtain copies of non-exempt public records from Central Office. This was consistent with decisions of this office in which we held that an inmate cannot exercise the right of on-site inspection at another facility due to his confinement and the institution is not required to bring the original records to his cell for inspection. In 95-ORD-105, p. 5, 6, we recognized:
An inmate in a correctional facility is uniquely situated with respect to the exercise of his rights under the Open Records Act. Although, as we have recently observed, "all persons have the same standing to inspect and receive copies of public records, and are subject to the same obligations for receipt thereof," an inmate's movements within the facility are presumably restricted, and the manner in which he conducts his financial business dictated by the facility. 94-ORD-90, p. 2; see also, OAGs 79-546; 79-582; 80-641; 82-394; 89-86; 91-129; 92-ORD-1136. Accordingly, an inmate must accept the necessary consequences of his confinement, including policies relative to application for, and receipt of, public records.
By the same token, and depending on the circumstances of his confinement, an inmate may be foreclosed from asserting the right to inspect public records prior to obtaining copies. Although the statute contemplates records access by one of two means, on-site inspection during the regular office hours of the agency or receipt of the records from the agency through the mail, access via on-site inspection may pose a problem in the restrictive environment of a correctional facility. KRS 61.872(3). Obviously, an inmate cannot exercise the right of on-site inspection at public agencies other than the facility in which he is confined. And, if he is prohibited from freely moving about in the facility, and therefore cannot conduct an on-site inspection in the records office, the facility is under no obligation to bring the original records to his cell for inspection.
Accordingly, we conclude the Department did not violate the Open Records Act in denying Mr. Stewart's request to inspect records maintained in its Central Office in Frankfort and properly required prepayment for copies of non-exempt records from that facility. 00-ORD-225.
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.