Opinion
Opinion By: Jack Conway, Attorney General; James M. Herrick, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether the Hopkins County Jail violated the Open Records Act in the disposition of inmate Rontonio Bradley's request dated February 18, 2015. For the reasons stated herein, we find no violation of the Act.
Mr. Bradley's request was submitted on a "Hopkins County Jail Requisition Form," a generic form designed for inmates "to request assistance that is beyond the ability or authority of the on duty shifts to provide." He wrote on the form:
Open Records Act Form. on jail policy of law library, strip searches, conflicts with staff
I Rontonio Bradley, request to inspect the following policies under the Open Records Act 2-18-15 or please return the proper forms I can fill out so that I may do so. Per KRS 61.872(2) KRS 197.025(7)
The jail's response, dated February 20, 2015, read:
There are no forms for an open records request. It can be completed on regular paper and mailed in.
Mr. Bradley's appeal to the Attorney General was received in this office on March 9, 2015. In his letter, he states:
Mr. Conway I spoke with you Jan 12, 2015 today is Feb 3, 2015 [ sic ]. Inside this letter is a copy of Open Records Act for law libra[r]y, strip searches, conflicts with staff.
Apart from the improbable chronology of the letter, it appears that Mr. Bradley was requesting on February 18 to inspect the jail's policies on the subjects of the law library, strip searches, and inmate conflicts with staff. On March 13, 2015, Captain Mike Lewis responded to the appeal on behalf of the jail:
I have reviewed the written complaint and the enclosed forms that were sent to your office by Mr. Bradley. In his complaint Mr. Bradley has made no claim of any open records request being denied in part or in full. I have further reviewed the facility records and find no previous open records request have [ sic ] been submitted by Mr. Bradley.
It would seem that the Hopkins County Jail did not detect, and still does not detect, the open records request made by Mr. Bradley on February 18, but instead interpreted his somewhat confusing language as merely a request for an open records request form. The confusion apparently stemmed from Mr. Bradley's beginning his request with "Open Records Request Form," followed by the subjects of the jail policies in question, then stating that he wished "to inspect the following policies" (emphasis added), and then again requesting a form for making an open records request. There were no "following policies" after his request to inspect; the only document "following" the request language was his reference to an open records request form. Because Mr. Bradley's request was somewhat unclear, and since he did not follow up after being told he could request records without a form, we do not fault the jail for failing to perceive the open records request for the jail policies. Accordingly, we find no violation of the Open Records Act by the Hopkins County Jail. 1
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.
Footnotes
Footnotes
1 We note additionally that 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.
In all probability, Mr. Bradley's request to inspect jail policies would have been subject to denial on the basis of this provision. See 03-ORD-150; 09-ORD-057.