Opinion
Opinion By: Jack Conway, Attorney General; James M. Herrick, 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 Northpoint Training Center properly relied on KRS 197.025(1) in denying inmate Ted Vaughn's request dated February 13, 2015, for a copy of "video footage in Medical Lobby from May 24th, 2014 between approximately 8:30 and 11:00 pm, w[hi]ch shows the physical restraints used by Lt. Humfleet against me, and resulted in the ongoing state and Federal investigations." For the reasons stated below, we find no violation of the Act.
On February 20, 2015, Kelly Tyree of Offender Information Services denied Mr. Vaughn's request as the record had "been identified as a security threat" pursuant to KRS 197.025(1). Mr. Vaughn's appeal to the Attorney General was received in this office on March 4, 2015.
Amy V. Barker, Assistant General Counsel, Justice and Public Safety Cabinet, responded on behalf of the facility on March 19, 2015. She explained further the facility's position:
Video taken at the prisons contains information that may directly affect the security of the institution including methods or practices used to obtain the video, the areas of observation and blind spots for the cameras, etc. It is impossible for NTC to redact the tape and eliminate the security concerns.
KRS 197.025(1) provides:
KRS 61.884 and 61.878 to the contrary notwithstanding, no person, including any inmate confined in a jail or any facility or any individual on active supervision under the jurisdiction of the department, 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.
Counsel cites a series of prior decisions of this office recognizing the propriety of a correctional facility's reliance on KRS 197.025(1) to deny an inmate's request for surveillance or security recordings, including an appeal involving a request for video of an altercation between an inmate and corrections officers. 07-ORD-168; also cited , 15-ORD-010; 13-ORD-033; 13-ORD-022; 11-ORD-219; 11-ORD-184; 08-ORD-082; 04-ORD-017.
In November 2011, the Attorney General analyzed this recurring issue in a separate factual context, concluding in accordance with past decisions that the correctional facility properly exercised its discretion in denying an inmate request for a surveillance video because disclosure "would pose a security threat to other inmates and [facility] staff. " 11-ORD-184. Copies of that open records decision, along with two decisions referenced therein, are attached hereto and incorporated by reference. KRS 197.025(1) reflects a legislative commitment to "prohibiting inmate access to otherwise nonexempt public records where disclosure of those records is deemed to constitute a threat to security." 96-ORD-209 (cited in 11-ORD-184). It is the commissioner or his designee whose determination in this regard is controlling. Therefore, we find no violation of the Open Records Act.
Mr. Vaughn also purports to appeal a response dated February 20, 2015, to an open records request for "any and all documents compiled in connection with the investigation of the incident in the medical department on May 24, 2014 between Lieutenant Humfleet and myself." We lack jurisdiction over this second appeal because Mr. Vaughn has not provided a copy of his request. KRS 61.880(2)(a) provides:
If a complaining party wishes the Attorney General to review a public agency's denial of a request to inspect a public record, the complaining party shall forward to the Attorney General a copy of the written request and a copy of the written response denying inspection. If the public agency refuses to provide a written response, a complaining party shall provide a copy of the written request.
(Emphasis added.) Pursuant to 40 KAR 1:030, Section 1, "[t]he Attorney General shall not consider a complaint that fails to conform to ? KRS 61.880(2), requiring the submission of a written request to the public agency and the public agency's written denial, if the agency provided a denial."
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.