Opinion
Opinion By: Andy Beshear,Attorney General;Sarah Ellen Eads Adkins,Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
At issue in this appeal is whether Muhlenburg County Detention Center ("MCDC") violated the Open Records Act in denying Joe Watson's February 8, 2019, request for records without prepayment of reproduction charges. Because the Open Records Act does not exempt requesters from the requirement for payment of copying fees codified at KRS 61.874(1), this office affirms MCDC's disposition of Appellant's request.
Appellant requested copies of documents related to how he was "released to the state of Ohio in October of 2016." On February 21, 2019, MCDC responded that the requested copies would cost $ 32.65 and asked Appellant to remit payment, stamps, and envelopes to receive the records. 1 This fee was calculated at the rate of twenty five cents ($ 0.25) per page. On February 22, 2019, Appellant initiated this appeal. Muhlenburg County Attorney, Ryan K. Rice, responded to this appeal and indicated he knew the fee for copies was unreasonable and changed the fee for copies to ten cents ($ 0.10).
First, MCDC acknowledges it violated the Open Records Act by charging twenty-five cents per page for copying. See 94-ORD-77 ("Unless these agencies can document that their actual costs are greater than ten cents per page, both the courts and this office have demonstrated an unwillingness to countenance higher copying charges.") MCDC cured this violation in its appeal, which included a copy of a new response sent to Appellant with fees calculated at ten cents ($ 0.10) per page.
Second, charging fees to inmates for copies is permissible. In
Friend v. Rees, 696 S.W.2d 325 (Ky. App. 1985), the court held that an inmate is entitled to receive a copy of a record only after "complying with the reasonable charge of reproduction. " See 95-ORD-105 (confirming it is "entirely proper for [a correctional] facility to require prepayment, and to enforce its standard policy relative to assessment of charges to inmate accounts . . .."). Accordingly, MCDC did not violate the Open Records Act by denying Appellant's open records request without payment of a reasonable fee for copies of the requested records.
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 shall be notified of any action in circuit court, but shall not be named as a party in that action or in any subsequent proceeding.
Footnotes
Footnotes
1 MCDC does not indicate when it receive Appellant's open records request and Appellant does not argue that the response was untimely; however the office reminds MCDC that KRS 197.025(7) grants a correctional facility five days , excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, to issue a response to an inmate's request for records.