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 Little Sandy Correctional Complex properly relied on KRS 197.025(1) in denying inmate Glenn Odom's request dated April 8, 2015, for "a copy of my attack (the camera footage) "; i.e. , security video footage of an altercation between Mr. Odom and two other inmates on an unspecified date. For the reasons stated below, we find no violation of the Act.
On April 13, 2015, Beth Harper of the Records Department denied Mr. Odom's request for the following reason:
Allowing inmates to possess copies of videotapes made in inmate residential quarters has been deemed a security threat by the Warden of this institution, because the videotape reveals the facility's methods or practices used in obtaining the video. Furthermore, the videotape shows areas where the camera is capable of focusing and observing and blind spots outside the camera's range. It is impossible for LSCC to redact the tape and eliminate the security concern. For these reasons, your request for a copy of the video is denied pursuant to KRS 61.878(1)(l) and KRS 197.025(1). See also 04-ORD-017.
Mr. Odom's appeal to the Attorney General was received in this office on April 27, 2015.
Amy V. Barker, Assistant General Counsel, Justice and Public Safety Cabinet, responded on behalf of the facility on May 1, 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 LSCC 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 (altercation between inmate and visitor).
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. Odom also purports to appeal a lack of a reply to a request he made to LSCC to "preserve the camera recording. " The Open Records Act is not directly implicated by a request to "preserve" a record. Since LSCC has met its burden of establishing that Mr. Odom is not entitled to a copy of the video footage, we find this dispositive of all open records issues on appeal.
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.