Opinion
Opinion By: Albert B. Chandler III, Attorney General; James M. Ringo, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
This matter having been presented to the Attorney General in an open records appeal, and the Attorney General being sufficiently advised, we find that the Lee Adjustment Center properly denied Michael Skinner's request to inspect his entire inmate file because he failed to identify the specific records he wished to review from that file.
In OAG 85-88 this office expressly recognized that the failure of an inmate to identify specific documents in his institutional file precluded release of the documents in the file. Citing OAG 79-547 we emphasized that the purpose of the Open Records Act is not to provide information but to provide access to public records which are not exempt by law. OAG 85-88, at p. 2. At p. 3 of that opinion we analogized an inmate's institutional file to a personnel file, insofar as both contain exempt and nonexempt documents, holding that a request to inspect an institutional file, like a request to inspect personnel files, "must specify the particular documents within such file to be inspected."
Moreover, the Center also cited KRS 197.025(1) as authority to withhold certain records in Mr. Skinner's inmate file, the release of which would constitute a threat to the security of the inmate, other inmate (s), or to the institution. That statute provides:
KRS 61.884 and 61.878 to the contrary notwithstanding, no person, including any inmate confined in a jail or any facility under the jurisdiction of the department [of Corrections] shall have access to any records if the disclosure is deemed by the commissioner of the department or his designee to constitute a threat to the security of the inmate, any other inmate, correctional staff, the institution, or any other person.
(Emphasis added.) Although the withholding of access to specific records is not at issue here, KRS 197.025(1) does provide that the Center could properly withhold access to records, the disclosure of which would constitute a threat to the security of the institution. This broadly worded provision is not limited to inmate records, but extends to "any records" the disclosure of which is deemed to constitute a threat to security.
Accordingly, we conclude the Center did not violate the Open Records Act in denying Mr. Skinner's request to inspect his entire inmate file where he failed to specifically describe the documents he wished to inspect. OAG 85-88. As noted above, the institution could properly withhold access to documents that it deemed would constitute a "threat to the security of the inmate, any other inmate, correctional staff, the institution, or any other person." KRS 197.025(1).
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.
Distributed to:
Michael Skinner, #120516Lee Adjustment CenterP.O. Box 900Beattyville, KY 41311
Jacqueline CharlesLee Adjustment CenterP.O. Box 900Beattyville, KY 41311
G. Edward Henry, IIGardner. Sellers & Gardner PLLCVictorian SquareSuite 314401 West Main StreetLexington, KY 40507
Sherril GautreauxDirector, Legal AffairsCorrection Corporation of America10 Burton Hills Blvd.Nashville, TN 27215