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 Little Sandy Correctional Complex properly refused to honor Karl Thompson's January 28, 2013, request for his 2010 risk assessment, inmate resident card, and an earlier open records request for his risk assessment, based on Mr. Thompson's failure to provide his institutional number and cell assignment as required by Corrections Policies and Procedures 6.1. 04-ORD-004 is dispositive of the issue on appeal. A copy is enclosed and adopted by reference.
In 04-ORD-004 this office affirmed the right of the Department of Corrections to require inmate submission of institutional number and cell assignment with an open records request to facilitate verification of the inmate requester's identity. Since that decision was issued, Kentucky's courts have declared that the Department of Corrections cannot enforce an administrative regulation that "purports to add a requirement not found in the statutes" against an inmate open records requester.
Commonwealth v. Chestnut, 250 S.W.3d 655, 662 (Ky. 2008), citing
Camera Center, Inc. v. Revenue Cabinet, 34 S.W.3d 39, 41 (Ky. 2000) and
Brown v. Jefferson County Police Merit Board, 751 S.W. 2023 (Ky. 1988). Because KRS 197.025(2) 1 authorizes DOC to deny inmate requests based on the identity of the requester, and not on the exempt or nonexempt nature of the requested record, CPP 6.1 cannot be said to "add a requirement not found in the statutes." Unlike other open records requesters, an inmate requester's identity is statutorily relevant to his right of access to records maintained by DOC, and DOC has developed a mechanism by which the inmate requester's identity can be confirmed at CPP 6.1.
It is incumbent on Mr. Thompson to comply with CPP 6.1 by including his institutional number and cell assignment in his open records requests. As noted, this policy enables LSCC to verify his identity before releasing records to him and is supported by KRS 197.025(2), permitting the facility to deny his requests if the records sought do not contain a specific reference to him. To this extent, CPP 6.1 does not add a requirement not found in the statutes. LSCC cannot be said to have violated the Open Records Act in denying Mr. Thompson's request based on his failure to provide the requisite identifying information.
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.
Distributed to:
Karl Thompson, # 144791Beth HarperAmy V. Barker
Footnotes
Footnotes
1 KRS 197.025(2) provides:
KRS 61.870 to 61.884 to the contrary notwithstanding, the department shall not be required to comply with a request for any record from any inmate confined in a jail or any facility or any individual on active supervision under the jurisdiction of the department, unless the request is for a record which contains a specific reference to that individual .
(Emphasis added.)