Opinion
Opinion By: Jack Conway, Attorney General; James M. Herrick, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether the Little Sandy Correctional Complex ("LSCC") violated the Open Records Act in the disposition of inmate Brandon R. Bruin's request for a copy of a chain-of-custody form relating to a dangerous-contraband incident in which he was implicated. For the reasons that follow, we find that the LSCC's response was in compliance with the Act.
Mr. Bruin's request, received on September 10, 2013, was for "a field analysis, Lab results and chain of custody Log for the evidence p[er]taining to Disciplinary Report # LSCC-2013-00856." On September 11, 2013, the LSCC responded with a memorandum from Beth Harper of the Records Department stating as follows:
Your request was referred to Internal Affairs. According to Captain Lowe the documents requested, (field analysis and lab results) do not exist. There was no urinalysis or lab test done on you or the evidence for this write up. The chain of custody for the write up does not specifically reference you. Therefore it cannot be given to you per KRS 197.025(2) which states that the Department of Corrections is not required to comply with a request for any record from any inmate confined in any facility unless the request is for a record that contains a specific reference to that individual.
Mr. Bruin initiated an open records appeal on September 17, 2013, arguing: "Whether or not my name is on the Form, it pacificly [ sic ] references me via the disciplinary report I am being detained and held to answer for." He also contends that he is entitled to the chain-of-custody form under Corrections policy CPP 15.6, II, C 4 b 3) (c), as the investigator is required to "[p]rovide the inmate with a copy of all documents to be used by the adjustment committee."
The response to Mr. Bruin's appeal was submitted by Linda M. Keeton, Assistant Counsel, Justice and Public Safety Cabinet, on behalf of the LSCC. The response states, in part, as follows:
Because the record requested does not contain a "specific reference" to the individual inmate, in this instance, the Appellant; the Agency properly denied his request.
Additionally, Inmate Bruin received a copy of his Disciplinary Report Form, Part I -- Write-up and Investigation, which shows the evidence used at his Adjustment Hearing? According to the aforementioned Report Form, the chain of custody form was not submitted to the Adjustment Committee as evidence. "The inmate is not entitled to documents or other evidence [that is] not submitted for the hearing." CPP 15.6, II, C 4 b 3) (c) ?
(Emphasis in original.)
Since the requested chain-of-custody form does not contain a specific reference to Mr. Bruin, he is not entitled to inspect it under the terms of KRS 197.025(2), which provides that "KRS 61.970 to 61.884 to the contrary notwithstanding, the department shall not be required to comply with a request for any record from any inmate confined in a jail or any facility or any individual on active supervision under the jurisdiction of the department, unless the request is for a record which contains a specific reference to that individual." 03-ORD-150; 09-ORD-057. The mere fact that the document is relevant to Mr. Bruin's disciplinary case is not the equivalent of "contain[ing] a specific reference" to him. Furthermore, if the form was not submitted as evidence at the adjustment hearing, he was not entitled to receive a copy of it under the cited departmental policy. Accordingly, we conclude that the LSCC did not violate the Open Records Act in its response to Mr. Bruin'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 proceedings.
Distributed to:
Mr. Brandon R. Bruin, # 240651Ms. Beth HarperLinda M. Keeton, Esq.