Opinion
Opinion By: Andy Beshear,Attorney General;Michelle D. Harrison,Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
Victor Strong initiated this appeal by letter dated April 14, 2017, challenging the March 29, 2017, denial by Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex ("EKCC") of his March 17, 2017, request in which Mr. Strong noted that he received a disciplinary report, "EKCC-2016-209 which was heard at court call on 01/26/2016" and in which Mr. Strong was ordered to pay $ 1946.00 in restitution for medical expenses. Mr. Strong asked for a copy of "the actual bill where it states the date and what medical treatment I am being billed $ 1946.00 for" in addition to a copy of "the Extraordinary Occurrence Report (EOR) relating to this dis/report EKCC-2016-209." EKCC received the request on March 29 and issued a timely written response per KRS 197.025(7) that same day. EKCC Open Records Coordinator Sonya Wright denied Mr. Strong's request for the specified EOR, citing KRS 197.025(1) and KRS 61.878(1)(l). Ms. Wright advised Mr. Strong that she forwarded a copy of his request to "inmate accounts" and the staff member who oversees restitution, "states that she did a thorough search for the bill requested" but was unable to find the record. EKCC further explained that staff indicated a former co-worker forwarded the record to Kentucky State Reformatory ("KSR") where Mr. Strong is currently incarcerated; EKCC suggested that Mr. Strong submit a new request to KSR. Inasmuch as Mr. Strong's primary goal in submitting the request was to acquire "documentation of the restitution bill and order," he asserted that EKCC could have redacted portions of the EOR "that did not contain information about the restitution. "
Upon receiving notification of Mr. Strong's appeal from this office, Oran S. McFarlan, III, Attorney, Justice and Public Safety Cabinet, responded on behalf of EKCC. Mr. McFarlan initially explained that Mr. Strong was charged with a disciplinary violation for "physical action against an employee" in January 2016. As part of his punishment, Mr. Strong was ordered to pay restitution to cover the medical expenses incurred by the correctional officers involved in the incident. Mr. McFarlan advised that EKCC conducted a more thorough search for the requested medical bills when it received Mr. Strong's appeal; two responsive documents were located. By memorandum directed to Mr. Strong on April 25, 2017, a copy of which Mr. McFarlan attached to his appeal response, Ms. Wright advised that both responsive documents were being provided at no charge "due to institutional error." Accordingly, Mr. Strong's appeal is now moot relative to said medical bills per 40 KAR 1:030, Section 6, 1 and this office must respectfully decline to render a decision regarding the related issues presented.
In addressing the EOR, Mr. McFarlan advised that the requested EOR "does not contain information about the restitution amount, but does contain significant response information that poses a risk if released to the inmate population or to the public." Quoting the language of KRS 197.025(1), incorporated into the Open Records Act by operation of KRS 61.878(1)(l), Mr. McFarlan correctly observed that correctional institutions under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections ("DOC") can properly deny a request on that basis. Relying upon a line of prior decisions by this office, Mr. McFarlan further explained:
Here, EORs contain "a step by step, minute by minute account of the actions taken by [facility] security personnel after the actions of the inmates were discovered." See 13-ORD-169, p. 3. The EOR requested by Mr. Strong involves a Use of Force Level 4 ( i.e . restraint chair) as well [as] an inmate assault on staff. The EOR also contains information about which staff members responded to the incident at issue as well as how they responded and their assignments. Releasing this kind of information to an inmate would create a security risk by revealing (a) how staff responds to such incidents, (b) the security details, and (c) the methods of investigation. EKCC also wants to protect any officers who responded to the incident from the threat of future retaliation.
In summary, EKCC maintained that disclosing the EOR in dispute would reveal information "that could threaten the security of correctional staff and the institution as well as harm the institution's ability to react to and investigate future rule violations or crimes." Accordingly, Mr. McFarlan asserted that the Attorney General "should defer to the reasonable exercise of discretion by [DOC] in this matter."
Resolution of this appeal turns on the application of KRS 197.025(1), which provides:
KRS 61.884 and 61.878 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.
As indicated, this provision is incorporated into the Open Records Act by operation of KRS 61.878(1)(l), pursuant to which "[p]ublic records or information the disclosure of which is prohibited or restricted or otherwise made confidential by enactment of the General Assembly" are included among those records removed from application of KRS 61.870 to 61.884.
By enacting KRS 197.025(1), "the legislature has created a mechanism for prohibiting inmate access to otherwise nonexempt public records where disclosure of those records is deemed to constitute a threat to security." 96-ORD-209, p. 3; 03-ORD-190. In construing the expansive language of this provision, the Attorney General has recognized that KRS 197.025(1) "vests the commissioner [or his designee] with broad, although not unfettered, discretion to deny inmates access to records." 96-ORD-179, p. 3; 03-ORD-190. Application of this provision "is not limited to inmate records, but extends to 'any records' the disclosure of which is deemed to constitute a threat to security." 96-ORD-204, p. 2 (emphasis added); 03-ORD-190 (affirming denial of request for incident reports because allowing inmates to view such reports would provide "'a means by which inmates could get information that may become the basis for retaliation against other inmates or security staff of the institution'"). Since its enactment in 1990, this office has upheld denials by correctional facilities of inmate requests and requests from the public for a variety of records based on KRS 197.025(1), including, but not limited to extraordinary occurrence reports (07-ORD-039), personnel statements contained in EORs (10-ORD-056), conflict sheets (OAG 91-136, 11-ORD-177), psychological evaluations of inmates (92-ORD-1314), facility canteen records (97-ORD-25), personnel records of correctional officers (96-ORD-204), facility deficiency reports (96-ORD-222), HIV testing records of inmates (96-ORD-243), and inmate honor dorm waiting lists (97-ORD-33). The instant appeal presents no basis to depart from this line of authority.
Here, EKCC determined, in a proper exercise of its discretion, that disclosing the requested EOR would pose a security threat to EKCC staff, other inmates, and the institution. The Attorney General, as previously noted, has consistently recognized that KRS 197.025(1) vests the commissioner or his designee with broad discretion in making this determination. 03-ORD-190, p. 5; 96-ORD-179; 00-ORD-125; see also 11-ORD-177. As before, this office declines to substitute its judgment for that of the correctional facility or DOC. In sum, EKCC properly relied upon KRS 197.025(1) in withholding the EOR in dispute.
Either party may appeal this decision by initiating action in the appropriate circuit court per KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882. Pursuant to KRS 61.880(3), the Attorney General must be notified of any action in circuit court, but should not be named as a party in that action or in any subsequent proceeding.
Footnotes
Footnotes
1 Pursuant to 40 KAR 1:030, Section 6: "If the requested documents are made available to the complaining party after a complaint is made, the Attorney General shall decline to issue a decision in the matter."