Opinion
Opinion By: Jack Conway, Attorney General; James M. Ringo, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether the actions of the Ohio County Detention Center (OCDC) relative to James David Adkins' request for all records, including but not limited to, booking records, medical records, medical request forms, etc., pertaining to his custody at OCDC from the date of January 1, 2005. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the Department's actions were proper and did not violate the Act.
After receipt of notification of the appeal and a copy of the letter of appeal, Paul Roe, Deputy, OCDC, provided this office with a response to the issues raised in the appeal. In his response, Mr. Roe advised that the OCDC had provided Mr. Adkins:
? all of inmate Adkins prior bookings/ release sheets that clearly stated his reasons for release, bond information, transfers, and medical furloughs. Also enclosed in this packet was information pertaining to inmate Adkins charge history. All items sent to inmate Adkins contained all the information such as time spent in our facility, date of arrest, charge information, reasons for release, time of intake, arresting agency and much more. As for inmate Adkins request pertaining to pretrial records we do not have access to these files nor do we have access to inmate medical files. Inmate Adkins needed to address those requests to these two different departments within our facility Division of Pretrial Services and Medical Department Ohio County Detention center in care of Nurse Charlotte Hendricks. All information has been sent to Green River Correctional Complex with inmate James Adkins name and number on the packet.
40 KAR 1:030, Section 6, provides: "If the requested documents are made available to the complaining party after a complaint is made, the Attorney General shall decline to issue a decision in the matter." Since Mr. Adkins was provided with records responsive to his request in OCDC's possession, the issue as to those records is moot and no decision will be rendered as to them.
The OCDC also advised that it did not have copies of the requested pretrial records and inmate medical files. Obviously, a public agency cannot afford a requester access to a record that it does not have or that does not exist. 99-ORD-98. The agency discharges its duty under the Open Records Act by affirmatively so stating. 99-ORD-150. The OCDC discharged its duty under the Open Records Act by affirmatively so advising that it did not have the requested pretrial records and inmate medical files. 99-ORD-150.
Moreover, KRS 61.872(4) provides:
If the person to whom the application is directed does not have custody or control of the public record requested, that person shall notify the applicant and shall furnish the name and location of the official custodian of the agency's public records.
As noted above, OCDC provided Mr. Adkins with the name and location of the official custodian of the agency that would have the pretrial records and inmate medical files. This was in compliance with the requirements of KRS 61.872(4) ; 03-ORD-225. Accordingly, we find no violation of the Open Records Act in this regard.
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.