22-ORD-277
December 21, 2022
In re: Curtis Lee Flora/Roederer Correctional Complex
Summary: The Roederer Correctional Complex (the “Complex”) did not
violate the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when denied a request for JPay
messages exchanged between private parties because they are not public
records.
Open Records Decision
Inmate Curtis Lee Flora (“Appellant”) submitted a request to the Complex for
a “copy of message[s] on [his] tablet from” a specific person on three specific dates and
times. In a timely response, the Complex denied the Appellant’s request because the
records requested were not “public records” under KRS 61.870(2). The Complex
explained that the messages requested were maintained by an “outside vendor” and
suggested the Appellant contact that vendor. This appeal followed.
On appeal, the Complex reiterates that the requested messages are not “public
records” because JPay “is an email system that is part of Securus Technologies, a
private company.” This Office has previously found that JPay emails and their
attachments exchanged between private parties are not “public records” under
KRS 61.870(2). See, e.g., 22-ORD-111; 22-ORD-021; 20-ORD-109. Only emails sent to
or from employees of the correctional facility using the JPay system are “public
records,” because such records would have been “prepared by” or “in the possession
of” the correctional facility. See KRS 61.870(2). Additionally, JPay emails that have
been seized and are being “used” by a correctional facility for some official purpose
are public records. Id.; see also 22-ORD-021; 21-ORD-124.Here, the Complex claims that the requested JPay messages are not “public
records,” and the Appellant does not provide any evidence to the contrary other than
his allegation that “Secures J-Pay are still currently operating alongside with DOC.”
The Appellant presents no evidence that the specific person who sent him the
requested messages is a Complex employee or that the requested emails are being
used by the Complex for some official purpose. Consequently, there is nothing in the
record to indicate that the requested pictures are “prepared, owned, used, in the
possession of or retained by a public agency,” and therefore they are not “public
records” within the meaning of KRS 61.870(2). Accordingly, the Complex did not
violate the Act when it denied the Appellant’s request because he did not request any
public records.1
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating action in the
appropriate circuit court under KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882 within 30 days from
the date of this decision. Under KRS 61.880(3), the Attorney General shall be notified
of any action in circuit court, but shall not be named as a party in that action or in
any subsequent proceedings. The Attorney General will accept notice of the complaint
emailed to OAGAppeals@ky.gov.
Daniel Cameron
Attorney General
s/ Matthew Ray
Matthew Ray
Assistant Attorney General
#464
Distributed to:
Curtis Lee Flora, #219728
Edward A. Baylous, II
1
Because the Appellant did not request any public records, it is unnecessary to consider the
Complex’s alternative argument that the requested pictures are “[c]ommunications of a purely
personal nature unrelated to any governmental function,” and therefore exempt from inspection under
KRS 61.878(1)(r).