Opinion
Opinion By: Jack Conway, Attorney General; Amye L. Bensenhaver, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
This matter having been presented to the Attorney General in an open records appeal, and the Attorney General being sufficiently advised, we find that although Lee Adjustment Center initially relied on the wrong exception in denying Victor Hall's September 2, 2010, request for a copy of "the letter faxed the week of August 10, 2009, by Melissa Dane to LAC investigator James Combs," LAC corrected this error in supplemental correspondence. Accordingly, we find that LAC properly denied Mr. Hall's request on the basis of KRS 197.025(1). 1 Although the letter at issue in this appeal is not a "confidential informant letter," we find that 01-ORD-224, 2 a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference, is controlling because it implicates many of the same security concerns.
In 01-ORD-224, an inmate requested, among other things, a copy of a "confidential informant letter." Relying on KRS 197.025(1) the correctional facility denied his request. We affirmed citing a series of open records decisions in which correctional facilities were deemed to have properly denied access under the referenced provision. To these, we add 02-ORD-82 (jail roster) ; 02-ORD-178 (arrest photo of another inmate) ; 05-ORD-101 (psychological file); 06-ORD-160 (staff security roster) ; 07-ORD-168 (in-house surveillance video); 08-ORD-148 (duty watch log); 08-ORD-203 and 09-ORD-152 (letters sent to or authored by inmates) ; 10-ORD-025 (extraordinary occurrence report.) Because KRS 197.025(1) raises a nearly impenetrable barrier to access, Mr. Hall must pursue avenues of access other than the Open Records Act if he wishes to obtain a copy of the letter.
LAC erroneously relied on KRS 61.878(1)(j) in its initial response to Mr. Hall's request. This error was corrected, on appeal, by counsel for LAC. Through its attorney, LAC persuasively argues that disclosure of the requested record to Mr. Hall threatens both institutional and personal security. Here, as in the open records decisions cited, we find that the correctional facility properly relied on KRS 197.025(1), incorporated into the Open Records Act by KRS 61.878(1)(l), 3 in denying Mr. Hall's request.
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.
Victor Hall, # 331283Betty ShepherdCole Carter
Footnotes
Footnotes
1 Clearly, Mr. Hall knows the identity of the person who faxed the letter to Mr. Combs.
2 KRS 197.025(1) has been amended since 01-ORD-224 was issued and now provides:
KRS 61.870 to 61.884 to the contrary notwithstanding, no person shall have access to any records if the disclosure is deemed by the commissioner of the department or his designee to constitute a threat to the security of the inmate, any other inmate, correctional staff, the institution, or any other person.
These amendments do not alter the outcome of that decision.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3 KRS 61.878(1)(l) authorizes public agencies to withhold, "Public records or information the disclosure of which is prohibited or restricted or otherwise made confidential by enactment of the General Assembly."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -