Opinion
Opinion By: Andy Beshear, Attorney General; Gordon R. Slone, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The issue presented in this appeal is whether Luther Luckett Correctional Complex ("LLCC") violated the Open Records Act in its disposition of inmate Kurt Lowe's requests for copies, and inspection, of records of disciplinary reports and classification appeals. For the reasons stated below, we find that LLCC did not violate the Act.
There are two open records requests at issue here, both dated August 28, 2017. In the first request, Mr. Lowe asked for copies of:
1. "Audio recorded Adjustment hearing held on 7/25/17 for DR # LLCC-2017-01908," and,
2. "Audio recorded Adjustment hearing held on 7/28/17 for DR # LLCC-2017-01908," and,
3. "Classification appeal and response from Warden, that was submitted to RHU UA Bowersock and CTO Long on 7/31/17 and delivered by SGT Hancock to them."
Pursuant to KRS 197.025(7) LLCC had five calendar days, excepting Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, to respond to the request, and a timely written response was sent by LLCC staff member Tara Wilkins, Offender Records Specialist, on August 30, 2017. In that response, Ms. Wilkins stated that she sent requests for the two audio recordings to the "Electronics Tech" on August 28, but that "the tech" informed her that there was no audio for the July 25, 2017, adjustment hearing. There was audio for the July 28, 2017, adjustment hearing and it was provided to Mr. Lowe.
Regarding the third item in the request, for a classification appeal supposedly delivered by Sgt. Hancock, Ms. Wilkins stated that she "spoke with Sgt Hancock on 8/30/17 and asked him about the delivery of the classification appeal. He stated that he does not recall you giving him anything while housed in the RHU to deliver to UA Bowersock or CTO Long. I have also checked with Deputy Warden Ferguson and her Secretary and they have gone thru the files and the hard copies since 7/31/17 and there is no record of the appeal."
In the second records request from Mr. Lowe, he asked for the same two audio recordings he had previously requested and also requested: "All documents I submitted to, or were taken and held by LT. Risinger from me, between 7/24 and 7/28/17 related to DR# LLCC-2017-01908." Ms. Wilkins responded to these requests by explaining that there was no audio recording for the 7/25/17 hearing; that she had sent a copy of the 7/28/17 recording to Mr. Lowe; and that she was "attaching the portion of your records request for the copies of documents that you submitted to Lt. Risinger for your viewing."
Mr. Lowe appealed the responses of LLCC, apparently arguing that LLCC is concealing the recording of July 25, 2017, and the "classification appeal and response from Warden" from the first request.
Oran S. McFarlan, III, attorney, Justice and public Safety Cabinet, responded on behalf of LLCC, and provided a memorandum from Ms. Wilkins. The memorandum again explained how Ms. Wilkins had asked the "Systems Electronic department" about the 7/25/17 recording, and had been informed that there was no recording for that date. Her memorandum also recounted how she had spoken with Sgt. Hancock on August 30, 2017, about the requested classification appeal and response, and that SGT Hancock stated that he did not recall Mr. Lowe giving him anything to give to UA Bowerstock or CTO Long. Ms. Wilkins explained how she then contacted UA Bowerstock and CTO Long about the requested record, but that they responded that they did not recall anything about such a classification appeal and response. Ms. Wilkins also contacted Deputy Warden Ferguson and her secretary, Shirley Raisor, about the requested record. Deputy Warden Ferguson and Ms. Raisor "went through the files and hard copies they had received since 7/31/17 and there was no record of the appeal."
LLCC fulfilled its obligations under the Open Records Act by conducting a good faith search for the alleged records upon receiving Mr. Lowe's request; determining that no responsive records existed; and then notifying him that there were no responsive records. "Obviously, a public agency cannot afford a requester access to records which do not exist." 99-ORD-98. "The agency discharges its duty under the Open Records Act by affirmatively so stating." 99-0RD-150. Moreover, an agency is not required to "prove a negative" when explaining that it does not have a record or that it does not exist. 09-ORD-194; compare, 16-ORD-101 (existence of a statute directing the creation of the requested record creates a presumption of the record's existence). In the absence of legal authority requiring the creation of the records, or facts indicating the records were created, we see no need to require further explanation of the requested documents' nonexistence. See 11-ORD-091. Accordingly, we find no violation of the Open Records Act.
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 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.