23-ORD-089
April 18, 2023
In re: Corey Wooley/Kentucky State Penitentiary
Summary: The Kentucky State Penitentiary (the “Penitentiary”) did
not violate the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it denied a request
under KRS 197.025(1) for security footage that if released would
constitute a security threat.
Open Records Decision
Inmate Corey Wooley (“Appellant”) submitted to the Penitentiary a request for
a copy of security camera footage recorded by a specific camera on a specific date and
time. In a timely response, the Penitentiary denied his request under
KRS 61.878(1)(l) and KRS 197.025(1) because it would be a “security risk” if the
footage was released and it “cannot be redacted.” This appeal followed.
Under KRS 197.025(1), “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.”1 This Office has historically deferred to the
judgment of the correctional facility in determining whether the release of certain
records would constitute a security threat. In particular, this Office has upheld the
denial of security footage multiple times. See, e.g., 22-ORD-038; 18-ORD-074; 13-
ORD-022; 10-ORD-055. The release of security footage poses a security risk because
it may disclose the “methods or practices used to obtain the video, the areas of
1
KRS 197.025(1) is incorporated into the Act under KRS 61.878(1)(l), which exempts from
inspection “[p]ublic records or information the disclosure of which is prohibited or restricted or
otherwise made confidential by enactment of the General Assembly[.]”observation and blind spots for the cameras.” See, e.g., 22-ORD-038; 17-ORD-211; 15-
ORD-121; 13-ORD-022.
Here, the Penitentiary explained that “[s]ecurity camera video taken at the
prisons contains information that may directly affect the security of the institution
including methods or practices used to obtain the video, the areas of observation and
blind spots for the cameras.” The Penitentiary further explained that “[i]t is
impossible for [the Penitentiary] to redact the video and eliminate the security
concerns.” Accordingly, the Penitentiary did not violate the Act when it withheld the
surveillance video, because it has adequately explained how KRS 197.025(1) applied
to the records withheld.2
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
#127
Distributed to:
Corey Wooley #255869
Amy V. Barker
Lydia C. Kendrick
Ann Smith
2
On appeal, the Appellant asks that the security footage he requested be preserved for legal
purposes. However, his request is outside the scope of this Office’s review under KRS 61.880(2)(a). See,
e.g., 22-ORD-108; 20-ORD-067; 17-ORD-064; 15-ORD-121.