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 Daviess County Detention Center violated the Open Records Act in the disposition of Roger Shelton's August 6, 2003 request "for certification of Inmate Accounts for mine and my wife's Katherine Shelton's Accounts." For the reasons that follow, we find that the agency's response was proper and did not constitute a violation of the Act.
On August 6, 2003, the Detention Center responded to Mr. Shelton's request, advising him:
Attached is a printout of your request. If your wife wants a copy, she needs to turn in a request.
In his letter of appeal, Mr. Shelton indicated that he had filed a second request on August 9, 2003 with the Detention Center, but was unable to provide a copy of this second request and further indicated that he had received no response to the second request.
After receipt of notification of the appeal and a copy of the letter of appeal, Robert M. Kirtley, Daviess County Attorney, by letter dated September 5, 2003, provided this office with a response to the issues raised in the appeal. In his response, Mr. Kirtley advised:
Upon receiving Notification of Open Records Appeal this date, I contacted the Daviess County Jailer, David Osborne. Jailer Osborne indicated that the second request made by Roger Shelton was to view the accounts of his wife, Katherine Shelton. Katherine Shelton's "accounting" contains her medical and prescription information. Mrs. Shelton has not made as open records request herself or consented to the release of the records to Roger Shelton.
Pursuant to KRS 61.878(1)(a), Jailer Osborne denied his request as the accounting is to subject to open records.
We are asked to determine whether the actions of the Detention Center violated the Open Records Act. For the reasons that follow, we find that the agency's actions were substantively correct and did not constitute a violation of the Act.
We address first Mr. Shelton's request for a copy of his inmate account. The Detention Center's response to Mr. Shelton's August 6, 2003 request indicates that a printout of his account was provided to him.
40 KAR 1:030, Section 6. Moot Complaints, provides:
If the requested documents are made to the complaining party after a complaint is made, the Attorney General shall decline to issue a decision in the matter.
Thus, the appeal is moot as to the Mr. Shelton's request for his a copy of his Inmate Account and no decision will be rendered in that regard.
Addressing next Mr. Shelton's request for a copy of his wife's inmate account, we affirm the Detention's denial of this request under authority of KRS 61.878(1)(a) and KRS 197.025(2).
The Detention Center denied this request on the basis that the account contained her medical and prescription information and Mrs. Shelton had neither made an open records request for her account records herself nor consented to the release of the records to Mr. Shelton. The Detention Center relied upon KRS 61.878(1)(a) in denying the request. That exception authorizes public agencies to withhold:
Public records containing information of a personal nature where the public disclosure thereof would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
As noted in Mr. Kirtley's response, Ms. Shelton's account contains personal information, such as her medical and prescription information. It is well recognized that a person's medical records and medical information is information in which a person has a privacy interest and the disclosure of records containing such information would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. See 03-ORD-023. Thus, at least the medical and prescription information in Ms. Shelton's inmate account could be properly withheld from disclosure under KRS 61.878(1)(a)
However, we affirm the Detention Center's denial of Mr. Shelton's request for a copy of Mrs. Shelton's inmate account, in its entirety, under authority of KRS 197.025(2), incorporated into the Open Records Act by operation of KRS 61.878(1)(l). In 03-ORD-73, p 3, this office, in discussing the 2002 amendment to KRS 197.025(2), 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 . . . .
See also, 03-ORD-007. Obviously, Mrs. Shelton's inmate account is personal to her and would not contain a specific reference to Mr. Shelton. Under the Open Records Act, Mr. Shelton stands in the same shoes as any other records requester. Mrs. Shelton has not consented to the release of the records to Mr. Shelton. Accordingly, we find that the Detention Center properly denied his request for a copy of his wife's inmate account.
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.