24-ORD-233
November 8, 2024
In re: Steve Roberson/Simpson County Detention Center
Summary: The Simpson County Detention Center (“the Center”)
violated the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it denied a request that
precisely described the records sought. The Office cannot find that the
Center violated the Act when it made available more records than what
the Appellant considered to be responsive to his request.
Open Records Decision
On August 9, August 22, and September 9, 2024, inmate Steve Roberson
(“Appellant”) submitted a series of requests to the Center seeking records related to
his incarceration and created between August 22, 2022, and August 2, 2024. In
response to the August 9 request for “all documentation relating to [his]
incarceration” on the specified dates, the Center asked the Appellant to be more
specific regarding the records he sought. On August 22, the Appellant stated that his
request was sufficiently specific. In response, the Center stated that it possessed 91
pages of responsive documents that would be mailed upon payment of $19.20 for
mailing and copying fees. In response, the Appellant modified his request to seek
records related to his “booking” and “arrest” on or about August 22, 2022, “and any
documented medical procedures performed on” the Appellant on that date. In
response, the Center stated it possessed a total of 164 pages of records responsive to
both requests that would be mailed upon payment of $26.50 in mailing and copying
fees. This appeal followed.
Under KRS 61.872(3)(b), a person may receive copies of public records by mail
“after he or she precisely describes the public records which are readily available
within the public agency.” The Office has found that a description is precise
under KRS 61.872(3)(b) “if it describes the records in definite, specific, and
unequivocal terms.” The Appellant sought “all documentation relating to [his]
incarceration” and narrowed his request to records created between August 22, 2022,and August 2, 2024. Although such a request could potentially be unreasonably
burdensome, it is not imprecise.1 See e.g., 22-ORD-213 (finding that a request for all
records of a particular type “does not make the request unclear,” but instead, might
make a request unreasonably burdensome if the agency provides clear and convincing
evidence). Thus, the Center improperly denied the Appellant’s August 9 request
under KRS 61.872(3)(b).
The Appellant’s September 9 request modified his request to seek “document[s]
relating to [his] booking” on August 22, 2022 “and any documented medical
procedures performed on [him] on [that] date.” In response, the Center states it has
compiled all records associated with the Appellant’s booking and all records in the
Appellant’s “complete medical file.”
The Office cannot resolve factual disputes between a requester and a public
agency about the content of the records produced. See, e.g., 23-ORD-050; 22-ORD-
010; 19-ORD-083; 03-ORD-061; OAG 89-81. Thus, the Office cannot find that the
Center violated the Act when it determined that 164 pages of records are responsive
to the Appellant’s September 9 request.2
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating an 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.
Russell Coleman
Attorney General
/s/ Zachary M. Zimmerer
Zachary M. Zimmerer
Assistant Attorney General
1
After the Appellant declined to narrow his request, the Center identified 91 records responsive to
his request and offered to make them available upon payment of copying and mailing fees. Thus, the
August 9 request was not unreasonably burdensome. See KRS 61.872(6).
2
To the extent the Appellant has challenged the fees proposed by the Center, the Act permits
agencies to require prepayment of copying and mailing fees before providing copies of records by mail.
See KRS 61.874(1). Furthermore, 10 cents per page is a reasonable fee for hard copies. See Friends v.
Rees, 696 S.W.2d 325, 326 (Ky. App. 1985).#406
Distributed to:
Steve D. Roberson #188638
Eric Vaughn
Timothy Phillips
Samuel R. Phillips