Opinion
Opinion By: Albert B. Chandler III, Attorney General; Amye L. Bensenhaver, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in these consolidated open records appeals is whether the Fayette County Detention Center properly relied on KRS 197.025(2), incorporated into the Open Records Act by operation of KRS 61.878(1)(l), 1 in denying Keith Phillips's May 29, 2003 request to inspect "the ledger showing where commissary profits are being spent" and his June 5, 2003 request to inspect "the labels of bread, coffee, juice [and] roast beef served to [him] as 'Kosher,'" as well as the Center's inmate grievance policy. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the Center's denial of Mr. Phillips's requests.
In his letter of appeal, Mr. Phillips objects to the Center's reliance on KRS 197.025(2), asserting that the provision only applies to convicted inmates under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections. Mr. Phillips is quick to note that he is "a non-convicted federal pre-trial inmate . . . being held for the U.S. Marshals." Arguing in the alternative, Mr. Phillips asserts that if KRS 197.025(2) is applicable to him, he is nevertheless entitled to inspect the requested records. Because he spends money in the commissary each week, because he is Jewish and observes dietary restrictions, and because he is an inmate and the "grievance process is for inmates, " those records pertain to him and KRS 197.025(2) does not bar access to them.
In supplemental correspondence directed to this office following commencement of Mr. Phillips's appeals, Lexington Fayette Urban County Government Corporate Counsel Michael R. Sanner amplified on the Center's position. Reaffirming the Center's reliance on KRS 197.025(2), he maintained that the provision "specifically applies to Mr. Phillips as Mr. Phillips is under the supervision of the Fayette County Detention Center, " and that he is "not aware of any statute, case, or Attorney General opinion which carves out an exception to the . . . statute for a federal inmate not convicted or sentenced." Mr. Sanner rejected Mr. Phillips's claim that the disputed records relate to him, citing 98-ORD-150 and 00-ORD-182, and asserted that "the type of loose association described by Mr. Phillips does not meet the statutory requirement." Because KRS 197.025(2) applies to Mr. Phillips, and because the records identified in his request do not pertain to him, Mr. Sanner urged this office to affirm the Center's denial of his request. Having considered the arguments advanced by the parties, and based on our decision in 03-ORD-074, we affirm.
As amended in 2002, 2 KRS 197.025(2) provides:
KRS 61.872 to the contrary notwithstanding, the department shall not be required to comply with a request for any record from any inmate confined in a jail or any facility or any individual on active supervision under the jurisdiction of the department, unless the request is for a record which contains a specific reference to that individual.
In construing this provision, the Attorney General recently observed:
By its express terms, this provision applies to requests for records submitted by inmates "confined in a jail or any facility . . . under the jurisdiction of the department [of Corrections]." The statute provides that "the department shall not be required to comply . . ." with such requests unless the record requested specifically references the requester. Although the statute does not specifically provide that jails or facilities under the Department's jurisdiction are not required to comply with such requests, we are unwilling to construe that statute so strictly that it yields the absurd result that an inmate can obtain from a jail those records which he cannot obtain from the Department. Given the broad oversight role statutorily assigned to the Department relative to jails, 3 and the common interest of these agencies in avoiding disclosure of records that implicate security concerns and in stemming the swelling tide of frivolous inmate requests, we find that an interpretation of KRS 197.025(2) that does not include jails is legally unsupportable in light of the underlying purpose of KRS 197.025 taken as a whole.
03-ORD-074, pp. 3, 4. By the same token, we find that an interpretation of KRS 197.025(2) that does not include federal pre-trial inmates being held in a local detention center is legally unsupportable in light of the underlying purpose of KRS 197.025. Mr. Phillips is "an inmate confined in a jail" within the meaning of KRS 197.025(2), and the provision applies to him. To hold otherwise would facilitate circumvention of the statute's prohibition on inmate access by enabling a federal pre-trial inmate to obtain records on behalf of other inmates. We find that the prohibition on access extends to all inmates confined in a jail or local detention center and not just those who have been convicted in state court.
Under no construction of KRS 197.025(2), as amended, can it be said that the "ledger showing where commissary profits are spent, " "the labels of bread, coffee, juice, [and] roast beef served . . . as Kosher," or the policy relating to inmate grievances "contain a specific reference to [Mr. Phillips]." 4 This is the statutory standard by which we assess the propriety of the agency's denial of an inmate's open records request on the basis of KRS 197.025(2), and under this standard, Mr. Phillips's claims fail.
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.
Keith PhillipsFayette County Detention Center 600 Old Frankfort CircleLexington, KY 40510-9689
R. S. Pridemore, Assistant DirectorCommunity CorrectionsFayette County Detention Center 600 Old Frankfort CircleLexington, KY 40510-9689
Mike SannerDepartment of LawLFUCG150 East Main StreetLexington, KY 40507
Footnotes
Footnotes
1 KRS 61.878(1)(l) authorizes public agencies to withhold "[p]ublic records or information the disclosure of which is prohibited or restricted or otherwise made confidential by enactment of the General Assembly."
2 With regard to the 2002 amendment to KRS 197.025(2), this office recently observed:
That provision previously authorized correctional facilities to withhold records from an inmate unless the records "pertain [ed] to that [inmate] ."
The language of KRS 197.025(2) has since been narrowed to require that the records requested by the inmate "contain a specific reference to the [requesting inmate] ." (Emphasis added.) The net effect of this amendment has been to further curtail the inmate's right of access to records maintained by the Department of Corrections and correctional facilities . . . .
03-ORD-73, p. 3; see also 03-ORD-003; 03-ORD-074.
3 See, for example, KRS 196.030(1)(e) (vesting the Department with the duty to administer and enforce KRS Chapter 441 "relating to the development and enforcement of jail standards; training of jailers and jail personnel, and jail planning and construction"); KRS 441.055 (vesting the Department with the duty to adopt and revise jail standards relating to health and safety, fire safety, operations, recordkeeping, administration, training, treatment of prisoners, medical care, jail equipment and construction, and standards review process); and KRS 441.064 (vesting the Department with the duty to employ jail consultants, inspect jails, and notify jailers of deficiencies).
4 We do not address other avenues of access, such as "discovery in a civil action [in] state/federal court," which Mr. Phillips threatens. Our review is confined to the propriety of the Center's actions under the Open Records Act.