Opinion
Opinion By: Gregory D. Stumbo, Attorney General; James M. Ringo, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether the actions of the Office of the Monroe County Jailer (Jailer) violated the Open Records Act relative to the August 6, 2007, open records request of James Harrison for copies of logs and documentation associated with the booking of Eugene McCarty in the early part of 2005 and three hundred forty seven dollars ($ 347.00) confiscated off his person.
Having received no response to his request, Mr. Harrison, by letter dated August 28, 2007, initiated this open records appeal. On September 7, 2007, the Attorney General sent a copy of Mr. Harrison's letter of appeal, along with our notification of receipt of open records appeal, to the Office of the Monroe County Jailer. On September 26, 2007, the agency provided this office and Mr. Harrison with a response to the issues raised in the appeal, advising:
This letter is in reference to the information requested. Deputy Ricky Richardson remembers when he was booked into our jail. He said the Tompkinsville Police confiscated all of his property and money. The inmate file cannot be found. We are providing the information below from our logbook.
With respect to the procedural requirements of the Open Records Act, as they pertain to correctional facilities, KRS 197.025(7) provides:
upon receipt of a request for any record, the department shall determine within five (5) days after receipt of the request, excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, whether the records shall be released.
In his August 28, 2007, letter of appeal, Mr. Harrison stated he mailed his request to the Monroe County Jailer on August 6, 2007, and as of August 28, 2007, he had yet to receive a response from the Jailer. The failure to respond within five business days after receipt of the initial request constituted a procedural violation of the Open Records Act and KRS 197.025(7). 04-ORD-106.
The Office of the Monroe County Jail provided Mr. Harrison with the requested information from its logbook. 40 KAR 1:030, Section 6. Moot Complaints, provides:
If the requested documents are made to the complaining party after a complaint is made, the Attorney General shall decline to issue a decision in the matter.
Since the agency provided the requested information from the logbook, we conclude that the issue of access to the requested record is moot. 40 KAR 1:030, Section 6.
The Jailer advised that Mr. McCarty's inmate file could not be found. The logbook information, provided by the Jailer in his response, indicates that Mr. McCarty was booked at the Jail on May 26, 2005, and released October 19, 2006, less than five years have elapsed since his release (or transfer). The Jailer has an obligation relative to proper records management and retention. The fact that the inmate's file, which may contain information associated with his booking, has been lost, misplaced, or destroyed suggests the presence of a management of records issue. Our review of the Records Retention Schedule -- Jailer - Booking, a copy of which is enclosed, indicates an inmate records/folder is a scheduled record found at Records Series L2751 and should only be destroyed five years after his release. It may consist, inter alia, of:
Inmate Administrative Segregation Sheet, Inmate notes to Staff, Community Service Center File, Property Box/Laundry bag receipt, Coat Receipts, Placement Form-Employment, Placement Form-Hom, Community Center Program Evidence Form, Resident's Personal Property Form, Chain of Evidence Form, Furlough Application, Community Center Arrival Slip, Community Center Discharge Slip, Special Diets, Denial of Admission Form, Alcohol Intoxication Slip, Inmate Receipt Form, Incident Reports, Trusty Contact Visitation Form, Release of Information Form (non-medical), Trusty Application, Inmate Observation Form, Work Release Roster, Work Release - Property Description Form, Extra Good Time Recommendation, Receipt for Law Books, Miranda Rights Waiver, Request for Examination (State Crime Lab), Arrest Card, and Health History.
KRS 61.8715 provides:
[T]o ensure the efficient administration of government and to provide accountability of government activities, public agencies are required to manage and maintain their records according to the requirements of . . . [KRS 61.870, et seq., the Kentucky Open Records Act, KRS 171.410 to 171.740, relating to public records management, and KRS 61.940 to 61.959, relating to strategic planning for computerized information systems.]
The General Assembly has thus recognized an "essential relationship" between the intent of the Open Records Act and statutes relating to proper records management and maintenance. KRS 61.8715. It is, however, for the Department for Libraries and Archives, and not the Attorney General, to assist the Office of the Monroe County Jail in determining whether it is fully discharging its duty to manage and preserve records containing "adequate and proper documentation of the organizational functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and designed to furnish information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the government and of persons directly affected by the agency's activities." KRS 171.640. Accordingly, pursuant to KRS 61.8715, we have referred the matter to the Department for Libraries and Archives for review under KRS Chapter 171.
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating action in the appropriate circuit court pursuant to KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882. Pursuant to KRS 61.880(3), the Attorney General should be notified of any action in circuit court, but should not be named as a party in that action or in any subsequent proceedings.