24-ORD-190
September 9, 2024
In re: James O’Toole/Knox County Detention Center
Summary: The Knox County Detention Center (“the Jail”) violated the
Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it failed to cite the specific exception
authorizing the nondisclosure of public records. However, the Jail did
not violate the Act when it denied a request for records posing a security
threat under KRS 197.025(1).
Open Records Decision
On July 16, 2024, attorney James O’Toole (“the Appellant”) requested “to
inspect or obtain copies of” records relating to his client’s incarceration at the Jail
between July 8 and 10, 2024, including “any video footage of any physical interactions
between” his client and correctional staff.1 In response, the Jail stated that video
footage existed but “object[ed] to its ‘wholesale’ release due to security concerns”
because “[t]he videotape may reveal blind spots or areas in which the cameras are
unable to focus.” Therefore, the Jail denied access to the video footage because “the
videotapes are exempt under KRS 61.878(1).” However, the Jail offered to release the
footage if the Appellant “would enter into a confidentiality agreement.” This appeal
followed.
Under KRS 61.880(1), “[a]n agency response denying, in whole or in part,
inspection of any record shall include a statement of the specific exception authorizing
the withholding of the record and a brief explanation of how the exception applies to
the record withheld.” Here, the Jail only cited KRS 61.878(1), the provision listing all
the exceptions to the Act. Thus, the Jail violated the Act when it failed to cite “the
specific exception authorizing the withholding of the record.”
On
appeal,
however,
the
Jail
cites
KRS
197.025(1)
and
KRS 61.878(1)(l), by which the former is incorporated into the Act. Under
KRS 197.025(1), “no person shall have access to any records if the disclosure is
1
None of the requested records other than video footage are at issue in this appeal.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.” The Office has historically deferred to the judgment of correctional
facilities in determining whether the release of certain records would constitute a
security threat under KRS 197.025(1). In particular, the Office has consistently
upheld the denial of security camera footage inside a detention center. See, e.g., 24-
ORD-154; 21-ORD-197; 18-ORD-074; 13-ORD-022; 10-ORD-055. The security risk in
connection with surveillance footage is that the footage would reveal “methods or
practices used to obtain the video, the areas of observation and blind spots for the
cameras.” See, e.g., 22-ORD-038; 17-ORD-211; 15-ORD-121; 13-ORD-022. Because
the Jail offers the same rationale here, the Jail did not violate the Act when it denied
access to the security footage.2
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating an action in the
appropriate circuit court pursuant to KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882 within 30 days
from the date of this decision. Pursuant to 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.
Russell Coleman
Attorney General
/s/ James M. Herrick
James M. Herrick
Assistant Attorney General
#337
Distributed to:
James N. O’Toole, Esq.
John F. Kelley, Jr., Esq.
Mary Stewart Hammons, Jailer
Gilbert Holland, Esq.
2
Although the security footage is exempt from disclosure to the general public, the Jail has
recognized the Appellant’s unique interest in viewing the footage and therefore has offered to disclose
it “if counsel and his client would enter into a confidentiality agreement to prevent further
dissemination of the footage.” Because the Appellant “stands in the same shoes as any other
requester,” 10-ORD-055, this offer goes beyond the Jail’s obligations under the Act.