Opinion
Opinion By: Gregory D. Stumbo, Attorney General; Michelle D. Harrison, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
At issue in the instant appeal is whether the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government, Division of Community Corrections violated the Kentucky Open Records Act in denying the request of Aaron Rivers, an inmate at Red Onion State Prison in Pound, Virginia, for "a full color copy of all persons booked into [the LFUCG Detention Center] who were white males with a birth year of 1981 (since January 1, 2004)." For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the Division of Community Corrections did not violate the Open Records Act in denying Mr. Rivers' request on the basis of KRS 197.025(2), incorporated into the Open Records Act by virtue of KRS 61.878(1)(l), and 04-ORD-015.
In a response dated February 24, 2004, R. S. Pridemore, Assistant Director of Community Corrections, denied Mr. Rivers' request as follows:
Pursuant to KRS 197.025(2), 04-ORD-015, your request is denied.
Information can be viewed on our website: jail. lfucg. com.
In a letter received by this office on March 5, 2004, Mr. Rivers appeals from the denial of his request. On appeal, Mr. Rivers' sole argument is that Mr. Pridemore's response "cites KRS 197.025(2) and 04-ORD-015 but fails to explain how these apply to the records requested" in violation of KRS 61.880(1). 1
In supplemental correspondence directed to this office following commencement of Mr. Rivers' appeal, Michael R. Sanner, Corporate Counsel for the LFUCG, elaborates on the Division's position. As correctly observed by Mr. Sanner:
. . . nowhere in Mr. Rivers' appeal does he appeal the denial of his request based on KRS 197.025(2).
In his original request, Mr. Rivers cites KRS 197.025. In addition, 04-ORD-015 In Re: Aaron Rivers/Louisville Metro Department of Corrections shows that Mr. Rivers is familiar with KRS 197.025(2) which states that an inmate confined to a jail or any facility or any individual on active supervision or under the jurisdiction of the department, can only inspect records which contain a specific reference to that individual.
This appeal is essentially a repeat of the same appeal [resolved] in 04-ORD-015 (copy attached for reference). In 04-ORD-015, the Attorney General held that Mr. Rivers was not entitled to inspect photographs of inmates booked to the facility pursuant to KRS 197.025(2). Furthermore, in 04-ORD-015, the Attorney General [rejected] Mr. Rivers' arguments pertaining to OAG 83-212, OAG 79-546, and Zink v. Commonwealth of Kentucky.
In response, Mr. Rivers argues that 04-ORD-015 "was in error because it was based on the assumption that [he is] an inmate who is being held in Virginia pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers." According to Mr. Rivers, he is "in a Virginia prison and not a facility under the jurisdiction of the 'Department' [of Corrections] within the meaning of KRS 197.025." Contrary to this assertion, however, Mr. Rivers is currently an inmate at a facility under the jurisdiction of the Department as he concedes in a pending open records appeal, Log Number 200400084, which he initiated against the Department following the denial of his request "for a copy of the policy relating to the classification of inmates who receive new time." In Mr. Rivers' own words, this "record does make specific re[f]erence to me because I am a Kentucky inmate in the full custody of Kentucky. (I'm just being housed in Virginia). And[,] it addresses "inmates [.]" (See attached). In light of that fact, further discussion of the jurisdiction issue is unwarranted. No credible argument can be made that KRS 197.025(2) does not apply on the facts presented.
At issue in 04-ORD-015 was whether the Louisville Metro Department of Corrections violated the Open Records Act in denying Mr. Rivers' request for "[p]hotographs of Jerry Dailey that are on file with [that] agency." On appeal, Mr. Rivers alleged that "Jerry Dailey" was an alias and, therefore, the requested image contained a "specific reference" to him as required for a requesting inmate to access public records under KRS 197.025(2). If Mr. Rivers is not entitled to access a photograph that purportedly bears his likeness as we concluded in 04-ORD-015, it stands to reason that he is not entitled to receive photographs of other inmates.
To summarize, the analysis contained in 04-ORD-015 is equally applicable here. A copy of that decision is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. Accordingly, we conclude that the Division did not violate the Open Records Act in denying Mr. Rivers' request on the basis of KRS 197.025(2) , incorporated into the Open Records Act by virtue of KRS 61.878(1)(l), and 04-ORD-015.
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating an 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.
Footnotes
Footnotes
1 In relevant part,KRS 61.880(1) provides:
An agency response denying, in whole or in part, inspection of any record shall include a statement of the specific exception authorizing the withholding of the record and a brief explanation of how the exception applies to the record withheld.
Although Mr. Pridemore failed to provide a "brief explanation" of how KRS 197.025(2) applies to the records requested by Mr. Rivers as required by this provision, he presumably relied upon the reasoning contained in 04-ORD-015 as evidenced by his citation thereof. To ensure compliance with the Open Records Act, the Division should be explicit in its reasoning when responding to future open records requests.