Opinion
Opinion By: Andy Beshear,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 (LSCC) properly relied on KRS 197.025(1) in redacting inmate conflict information and security threat group (STG) information from the transfer form requested by inmate Chris Hawkins on February 29, 2016. For the reasons stated below, we find no violation of the Open Records Act.
On March 1, 2016, Beth Harper of the Records Department advised Mr. Hawkins that his request for the transfer form "is granted however, limited redaction has been taken from the transfer form for security of the institution per KRS 61.878(1)(l) and KRS 197.025(1) ." Mr. Hawkins' appeal was received in this office on March 7, 2016. He alleges that "the fact that 'yes' I have conflicts is something I of all people know and need to know since it is related to my safety, rather than that of the facility," and that "the STG comments are friv[o]lous lies put into my records."
KRS 197.025(1) specifically 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.
In a response to the appeal dated March 23, 2016, Amy V. Barker, Assistant General Counsel, Justice and Public Safety Cabinet, explains further the facility's position:
Conflict information is not always provided by the inmate making the request for the record. An inmate can have a conflict with another inmate or staff and not be aware of the conflict. Having this information available can cause inmates to try to determine who is the conflict [ sic ] causing fights or harm to other inmates or staff. Corrections does not release any conflict information to inmates or the public given this issue and the risks involved.
The security threat group [(STG)] information is similar to conflict information in security risk issues. If an inmate is aware that he or she [has] been validated as part of a security threat group, the inmate could begin to look for a "snitch" or other inmate or staff person who could have possibly provided information that would allow the individual to be validated. This again puts inmates and staff at risk of fights or other harm.
The Kentucky Department of Corrections does not segregate or make housing assignments based upon the STG identifier. The STG identifier may be the result of an individual's affiliation in the community before incarceration and does not identify current and active STG involvement. All inmates are mainstreamed into general population regardless of STG affiliation. Exposing the STG affiliation status of an inmate could make the inmate a target of rival STG organizations based solely on the affiliation. Exposing the STG affiliation could also expose an inmate to coercion to become involved in illegal STG activities.
The security exemption applies to releasing the records to any person, not just inmates, and inmates' housing locations are always subject to change. The Department also cannot control with whom Inmate Hawkins would discuss or disclose the conflict or [STG] information, i.e., inmates or other outside parties and the release would inhibit candid responses and create a potential for inmate disruptions and retaliation.
KRS 197.025(1) affords the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections or his designee "broad, although not unfettered, discretion to deny inmates access to records the disclosure of which, in his view, represents a threat to institutional security." 96-ORD-179. We have previously upheld the denial of records relating to both inmate conflicts and gang affiliation under KRS 197.025(1). 11-ORD-181; 16-ORD-023. Under the facts presented, we find that KSP has articulated a credible basis for withholding this information in the interest of security.
In previous appeals, we have declined to substitute our judgment for that of the facility or the Department of Corrections, and the present appeal presents no reason to depart from this approach. ( See 04-ORD-017 and authorities cited therein.) Consistent with the foregoing precedent, we conclude that LSCC did not violate the Open Records Act in redacting this information from the transfer form on the basis of KRS 197.025(1).
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.