22-ORD-276
December 21, 2022
In re: Joshua Porter/Roederer Correctional Complex
Summary: The Roederer Correctional Complex (the “Complex”) did not
violate the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it denied a request for
JPay emails exchanged between private parties because they are not
public records.
Open Records Decision
Inmate Joshua Porter (“Appellant”) submitted a request to the Complex for
“JPay sent messages [and] pictures sent” to private individuals on specific dates and
times. In a timely response, the Complex denied the request because JPay messages
and their attachments are not “public records” under KRS 61.870(2). The Complex
further explained that JPay is a service provided by an “outside vendor,” and that
private company maintains the requested records. The Complex also provided the
mailing address for the company. This appeal followed.
On appeal, the Complex reiterates that the requested emails and their contents
are not “public records” because JPay “is an email system that is part of Securus
Technologies, a private company.” This Office has previously found that JPay emails
and their attachments exchanged between private parties are not “public records”
under KRS 61.870(2). See, e.g., 22-ORD-111; 22-ORD-021; 20-ORD-109. Only emails
sent to or from employees of the correctional facility using the JPay system are “public
records,” because those records would have been “prepared by” or “in the possession
of” the correctional facility. See KRS 61.870(2). Additionally, JPay emails that have
been seized and are being “used” by a correctional facility for some official purpose
are “public records.” Id.; see also 22-ORD-021; 21-ORD-124.Here, the Complex claims that the requested JPay emails and the pictures
contained therein are not “public records,” and the Appellant does not present
evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, no evidence suggests that the emails were
sent to or from Complex employees or are being used for some official purpose.
Therefore, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the requested pictures are
“prepared, owned, used, in the possession of or retained by a public agency” within
the meaning of KRS 61.870(2). Accordingly, the Complex did not violate the Act when
it denied the Appellant’s request because he did not request any public records.1
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating action in the
appropriate circuit court under KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882 within 30 days from
the date of this decision. Under 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 proceedings. The Attorney General will accept notice of the complaint
emailed to OAGAppeals@ky.gov.
Daniel Cameron
Attorney General
s/ Matthew Ray
Matthew Ray
Assistant Attorney General
#463
Distributed to:
Joshua Porter, #271353
Edward A. Baylous, II
1
Because the Appellant did not request any public records, it is unnecessary to consider the
Complex’s alternative argument that the requested pictures are “[c]ommunications of a purely
personal nature unrelated to any governmental function,” and therefore exempt from inspection under
KRS 61.878(1)(r).