Opinion
Opinion By: Gregory D. Stumbo, Attorney General; James M. Ringo, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether the Blackburn Correctional Complex (BCC) violated the Open Records Act in the disposition of Gary White's November 29, 2006, request "[t]o see if I have felony detainer or pleading charges against me. If so, what, where and what are they? And misdemeanor too." For the reasons that follow, we find that the BCC's response did not violate the Act.
By response dated December 5, 2006, Susan Wilhoit-Oliver, Offender Information Supervisor, BCC, advised Mr. White:
You have made a request for information. The Attorney General's Office has determined that requests for information are outside the scope of the open records law and an agency is not obligated to honor a request for information under the law. 02-ORD-88; KRS 61.870 et seq.
The Open Records Act allows access to public records. The Act does not require agencies to create records or to provide information. 95-ORD-48. I am therefore denying your request.
Subsequently, by letter dated December 6, 2006, Mr. White initiated the instant appeal.
After receipt of notification of the appeal, Emily Dennis, Staff Attorney, Justice and Public Safety Cabinet, provided this office with a response on behalf of BCC. In her response, Ms. Dennis reiterated that BCC's response did not violate the Open Records Act as Mr. White's request was clearly phrased as a request for information, and the Act does not require public agencies to perform research, compile information, or create records in response to a given request. Ms. Dennis further advised that if Mr. White would amend his request to provide a reasonably particular description of the records he wants to access, such as by requesting to inspect or receive copies of ". . . all detainers (felony or misdemeanor) reflected in the institutional offender record folder," the agency will be obligated to provide him the opportunity to inspect or to receive copies of these records, if the records exist. In addition, Ms. Dennis advised Mr. White to include his institutional number in addition to his name and housing assignment, as required by CPP 6.1 to verify the identity of the inmate who requests access to records.
We are asked to determine whether the BCC's denial of Mr. White's request violated the Open Records Act. We find that the BCC's denial did not violate the Act.
Mr. White requested "[t]o see if I have felony detainer or pleading charges against me. If so, what, where and what are they? And misdemeanor too." The Kentucky Open Records Act addresses requests for records, not requests for information. 03-ORD-028. At page 2 of 95-ORD-131, the Attorney General observed.
Requests for information, as distinguished from records, are outside of the scope of the open records provisions. See, e.g., OAG 89-77. Our position is premised on the notion that "[o]pen records provisions address only inspection of records . . . [and] do not require public agencies or officials to provide or compile specific information to conform to the parameters of a given request.
Mr. White's request was clearly one for information, rather than one for a precisely described record. Accordingly, we find no error in the BCC's response that a public agency is not required to honor a request for information under the Open Records Act and that the agency properly denied the request on that ground. If he has not already done so, Mr. White should amend his request to provide a reasonably particular description of the records containing the information he wants to access, as described by Ms. Dennis in her response submitted to this office.
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.