23-ORD-338
December 18, 2023
In re: Sasha Torchinsky/Kentucky Department of Corrections
Summary: The Department of Corrections (“Department”) did not
violate the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it denied a request for
recorded telephone calls that would pose a security threat to the
Department if released. KRS 197.025(1).
Open Records Decision
Sasha Torchinsky (“Appellant”) submitted a request to inspect “all records in
relation to” a former inmate and specified that “[a]ny inmate phone recording records
are also requested.” Relevant here, the Department denied the Appellant’s inspection
of audio recordings of telephone calls under KRS 197.025(1).1 The Appellant then
initiated this appeal, objecting to the Department’s decision to withhold the “audio
recordings of telephone calls.”
The Appellant argues she is entitled to production of the audio recordings of
telephone calls because a “majority of these recordings are of [her] and” a former
inmate. The Department explains that disclosure of the records would constitute a
security threat and that denial of those records was proper under KRS 197.025(1).
That statute provides that “no person shall have access to any records if the disclosure
is deemed by the commissioner of the [Department of Corrections] or his designee to
constitute a threat to the security of the . . . correctional staff [or] the institution.”
KRS 197.025(1) is incorporated into the Act under KRS 61.878(1)(l), which exempts
from inspection public records the disclosure of which is prohibited by enactment of
1
The Department also provided responsive records with redactions made pursuant to
KRS 61.878(1)(a) and KRS 197.025(1). However, the Appellant objects only to the Department’s
withholding of the telephone calls. As such, the redactions it made to the records is not at issue in this
appeal.the General Assembly. Specifically, the Department states that release of recorded
telephone calls would “provide a means by which inmates could learn how phone calls
are monitored and be used to develop strategies to evade monitoring.”
This Office historically has deferred to the judgment of a correctional facility
in determining whether the release of certain records would constitute a security
threat. In particular, this Office has upheld the denial of recorded telephone calls
based on the same threats to security identified by the Department. See, e.g., 17-ORD-
111 (allowing exemption when releasing records would risk “providing a means by
which inmates could learn which telephone calls are monitored”). Accordingly, the
Department did not violate the Act when it withheld “audio recordings of telephone
calls” that, if released, would pose a security risk under KRS 197.025(1).
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.
Daniel Cameron
Attorney General
s/ Zachary M. Zimmerer
Zachary M. Zimmerer
Assistant Attorney General
#527
Distributed to:
Sasha Torchinsky
Amy V. Barker
Sara M. Pittman
Ann Smith