23-ORD-104
May 3, 2023
In re: Ricky Bernard Jones/Green River Correctional Complex
Summary: The Green River Correctional Complex (the “Complex”) did
not violate the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it denied a request for
a record that, if released, would constitute a security threat under
KRS 197.025(1).
Open Records Decision
Inmate Ricky Bernard Jones (“Appellant”) submitted a request to the Complex
for a copy of “Part I & II of [the] April 2020, disciplinary report of 3-11, including but
not limited to information and occurrence reports.” In a timely response, the Complex
partially granted the request and provided a copy of “Part I and Part II of the
disciplinary report of a 3-11.” The Complex denied the Appellant’s request for the
Extraordinary Occurrence Report (“EOR”) related to the disciplinary report because
its release “would constitute a threat to the security of inmates, the institution,
institutional staff, or others and cannot be provided pursuant to KRS 197.025(1) and
KRS 61.878(1)(k).” This appeal followed.
On appeal, the Complex reconsidered its initial denial and determined it could
provide a copy of the EOR related to parts I and II of the April 2020 disciplinary
report after it redacted the information that posed a security threat under
KRS 197.025(1) and KRS 61.878(1)(k) and the Appellant paid the appropriate
copying fees.1 Under KRS 197.025(1), which is incorporated into the Act under
1
The Complex also claims that “[t]he date of birth and limited redactions that contained information
only about the other inmate were also redacted because the privacy interest of the other inmate inKRS 61.878(1)(l), “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.” Under KRS 61.878(4), “[i]f any public record contains material
which is not excepted . . . the public agency shall separate the excepted and make the
nonexcepted material available for examination.” This Office has historically deferred
to the judgment of correctional facilities in determining whether the release of certain
records would constitute a security threat under KRS 197.025(1).
Here, on appeal, the Complex explains the EOR it initially withheld contained
“security response information and security references” as well as “a minute-by-
minute account of the actions taken by security personnel after the actions of the
inmates were discovered” and “also contains security references that give information
about staff response that should not be provided generally to inmates without
potential risk to staff in future responses.” The Complex continues to claim that
“[r]eleasing this kind of information to an inmate would create a security risk by
revealing too much detail about staff response to such incidents,” but that it can
redact this information and release the redacted EOR to the Appellant.
This Office historically has deferred to the judgment of correctional facilities,
such as the Complex, in determining what constitutes a security threat under
KRS 197.025(1). See, e.g., 22-ORD-223 (upholding the redaction of information in an
EOR that posed a security threat). Similarly, under these facts, this Office defers to
the judgment of the Complex as to what constitutes a security threat. Therefore, the
Complex did not violate the Act when it initially denied the Appellant’s request, or
when it withheld parts of records that if released would constitute a security threat
under KRS 197.025(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.
keeping his information out of [the Appellant’s] hands outweighed the interest of disclosure for those
few redactions.” This Office has found that a public agency did not violate the Act when it redacted
personal information such as the dates of birth of crime victims. See, e.g., 19-ORD-224; 19-ORD-204.Daniel Cameron
Attorney General
s/ Matthew Ray
Matthew Ray
Assistant Attorney General
#150
Distributed to:
Ricky Bernard Jones #105345
Amy V. Barker
Lydia C. Kendrick
Ann Smith