Opinion
Opinion By: Jack Conway, Attorney General; Matt James, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether the Blackburn Correctional Complex violated the Open Records Act by denying an inmate's request for documents and evidence regarding the inmate's disciplinary report. We find that the Blackburn Correctional Complex has offered to provide all documents relating to the incident that are available under the Open Records Act, and did not err in refusing to provide security camera videotapes pertaining to the incident.
Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex inmate Jan Dunson ("Dunson") submitted an open records request to the Blackburn Correctional Complex ("BCC"), where he was formerly housed, on June 3, 2013. Dunson requested the Disciplinary Report Form Part I for report numbers BCC-2013-00935 and BCC-2013-00936, incidents involving him, as well as all documents or other evidence relied on by the reporting employee and disciplinary hearing officer pursuant to Corrections Policies and Procedures Rule 15.6. BCC received the request on June 5, 2013, and responded on June 6, 2013. BCC denied the request by informing Dunson that the records were no longer at BCC, as they were in his file at the Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex where he was presently housed. Dunson initiated this appeal on June 13, 2013. BCC responded to Dunson on June 25, 2013 by informing him that it would provide the records upon payment. BCC further added that if he was seeking copies of security camera videotapes, that they would not be provided pursuant to KRS 61.878(1) and KRS 197.025(1). The Justice and Public Safety Cabinet also responded on June 25, 2013 by arguing that since BCC had agreed to provide the records, the appeal was now moot, and that BCC properly denied any request for security camera videotapes.
KRS 197.025(1) provides that "no person shall have access to any records if the disclosure is deemed by the commissioner of the department or his designee to constitute a threat to the security of the inmate, any other inmate, correctional staff, the institution, or any other person." BCC declined to provide the security camera videotapes on the grounds that it constitutes a security risk, given the amount and nature of the information that cannot be redacted from a security video. The Justice and Public Safety Cabinet adds that video taken at prisons contains information that may directly affect the security of the institution, including methods used to obtain the video, areas of observation, and areas of blind spots. BCC has articulated a credible reason that providing security camera videotapes would constitute a security risk. Historically we have declined to substitute our judgment as to what constitutes a security risk for the commissioner's designee's judgment, and we have consistently denied requests for prison security camera videotapes once KRS 197.025(1) has been properly invoked. 13-ORD-022; 08-ORD-082; 04-ORD-017. Therefore, we find BCC did not err in not providing security camera videotapes.
40 KAR 1:030 § 6 provides that "if the requested documents are made available to the complaining party after a complaint is made, the Attorney General shall decline to issue a decision in the matter." Since BCC has agreed to provide Dunson with all the records that he is entitled to under the Open Records Act, the remainder of Dunson's appeal is now moot. Accordingly, we hold that BCC did not violate the Open Records Act by refusing to provide prison security camera videotapes, and agreeing to provide the remainder of the records requested.
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating an action in the appropriate circuit court pursuant to KRS 61.846(4)(a). The Attorney General should be notified of any action in circuit court, but should not be named as a party in that action or any subsequent proceedings.
Distributed to:
Jan Dunson, # 123401Susan Wilhoit-OliverAmy V. Barker