23-ORD-127
June 8, 2023
In re: Carlos Thurman/Green River Correctional Complex
Summary: The Green River Correctional Complex (the “Complex”)
violated the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it denied a request to
inspect records that adequately described the records sought.
Open Records Decision
Inmate Carlos Thurman (“Appellant”) submitted a request to the Complex “to
view any and all scanned documents” in KOMS from June 12, 2017, to March 6,
2023.1 The Appellant specified his request was limited to “only all documents from
government officials of the” Department of Corrections. In a timely response, the
Complex denied his request under KRS 61.872(2) because he did not sufficiently
describe the records he requested. The Complex invited the Appellant to “precisely
describe” the records he sought because his request, as originally submitted, would
lead to an “extensive amount of documents to search.” This appeal followed.
On appeal, the Complex continues to deny the Appellant’s request for failing
to adequately describe the records he seeks. To invoke the statutory right to inspect
records, a resident of the Commonwealth must submit to the public agency a written
and signed application “describing the records to be inspected.” KRS 61.872(2)(a).2 At
1
“KOMS” is the Kentucky Offender Management System, which contains the electronic version of
an inmate’s offender file.
2
The Complex now relies on KRS 61.872(3)(b) to deny the Appellant’s request. Under
KRS 61.872(3)(b), a public agency is required to mail copies of records only “after [the requester]
precisely describes the public records which are readily available within the public agency.” A
description is precise “if it describes the records in definite, specific, and unequivocal terms.” 98-ORD-
17 (internal quotation marks omitted). This standard is generally not met by requests that are
unlimited in temporal scope or do not “describe records by type, origin, county, or any identifier othera minimum, a request to inspect public records must describe those records in a
manner “adequate for a reasonable person to ascertain the nature and scope of [the]
request.” Commonwealth v. Chestnut, 250 S.W.3d 655, 661 (Ky. 2008). A person
wishing to inspect records must “describe the records he seeks so as to make locating
them reasonably possible.” City of Fort Thomas v. Cincinnati Enquirer, 406 S.W.3d
842, 855 (Ky. 2013). Indeed, the inmate requester in Chestnut asked to see his inmate
file, excluding any confidential information, and the Supreme Court of Kentucky
opined that the inmate “was required to do nothing more and, indeed, likely could not
have done anything more because he could not reasonably be expected to request
blindly, yet with particularity, documents from a file that he had never seen.”
Chestnut, 250 S.W.3d at 662.
Here, the Appellant asked to “view any and all scanned documents” in KOMS
from June 12, 2017, to March 6, 2023, that were “from government officials of the”
Department of Corrections. The Appellant’s request is limited in both temporal scope
and the type of record sought. There is little difference between his request and the
inmate’s request in Chestnut, except the Appellant here has limited his request even
further by specifying the applicable date range and the type of record—
communications from officials from the Department of Corrections.3 Therefore, the
Complex violated the Act when it denied the Appellant’s request to inspect records.
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating an 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.
than relation to a subject.” 13-ORD-077. Here, however, the Appellant requested to view records, i.e.,
to exercise his right to in-person inspection under KRS 61.872(3)(a). He did not request copies to be
mailed to him under KRS 61.872(3)(b).
3
To the extent the Complex interpreted the Appellant’s request as one seeking every record in the
entire KOMS regardless of the inmate file in which the records were located, that would be an
unreasonable interpretation. The Complex is aware that, under KRS 197.025(2), inmates may only
inspect records that make a specific reference to them, but it did not deny the Appellant’s request on
that basis. Moreover, the Appellant states on appeal that he sought records in his KOMS file
specifically.Daniel Cameron
Attorney General
s/ Matthew Ray
Matthew Ray
Assistant Attorney General
#184
Distributed to:
Carlos Thurman #112192
Amy V. Barker
Lydia C. Kendrick
Ann Smith