Opinion
Opinion By: Jack Conway, Attorney General; Amye L. Bensenhaver, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
This matter having been presented to the Attorney General in an open records appeal, and the Attorney General being sufficiently advised, we find that the Department of Corrections Division of Probation and Parole District 12 cannot be said to have violated the Open Records Act in failing to respond to Donald Sargent's July 29, 2010, request for "P.V. Revocation hearing documents, verification of jail time in Grant County jail from 02/28/1989 until [his] commitment to Kentucky Department of Corrections, and verification of P.V. custody credit when [he] was returned from Waco, TX."
Mr. Sargent's request did not reach its intended destination because it was misaddressed. Upon submission of his appeal, a copy of his request was mailed to DOC, along with notice of the appeal, and DOC staff took immediate action to rectify the situation. On August 19, 2010, 12th District Supervisor Chris Copenhaver issued a written response to Mr. Sargent advising him that his office had located four responsive records comprised of seven pages and would mail him copies upon receipt of copying and postage charges. Additionally, Mr. Copenhaver notified Mr. Sargent that Probation and Parole does not maintain records verifying jail time in Grant County and PV custody credit "when he returned from custody in Waco, Texas." Mr. Copenhaver indicated that Mr. Sargent could obtain his resident record card, containing the information, from the Department of Corrections, Offender Information, located at 275 East Main Street, P.O. Box 2400, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601.
Because Mr. Sargent's request did not reach Probation and Parole District 12, the agency did not violate KRS 61.880(1) in failing to respond. Upon receipt of the request, as an attachment to this office's notification of appeal, the agency promptly notified Mr. Sargent that responsive records had been located and would be mailed to him upon receipt of postage and copying charges, thus complying with KRS 61.880(1) and KRS 61.874(3). The agency also complied with KRS 61.872(4) by advising Mr. Sargent that it maintained no records responsive to portions of his request and providing him with the name and location of the custodian of the record containing the information he seeks. We find no error in Probation and Parole District 12's handling of Mr. Sargent's request.
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 proceeding.
Donald Sargent, # 085147Amy V. BarkerChris Copenhaver