25-ORD-007
January 7, 2025
In re: Vivian Miles/Department of Corrections
Summary: The Department of Corrections (“the Department”) violated
the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it directed the Appellant to the
public agency possessing the requested records but declined to identify
the agency’s official custodian.
Open Records Decision
Vivian Miles (“the Appellant”) submitted a request to the Department seeking
security video of an inmate at Little Sandy Correctional Complex (“the Complex”) and
body worn camera footage from a specified date and time. In response, the
Department stated it is not the custodian of the requested records and directed the
Appellant to the Complex, providing the Appellant with the Complex’s mailing
address. The Appellant then requested the name and email address of the Complex’s
records custodian, to which the Department responded that it was “not giving out
email addresses.” This appeal followed.
Under KRS 61.872(4), “[i]f the person to whom the application is directed does
not have custody or control of the public record requested, that person shall notify the
applicant and shall furnish the name and location of the official custodian of the
agency’s public records.” Here, the Department only identified the agency that would
possess any responsive records, but failed to provide the name and email address of
the agency’s records custodian. Although KRS 61.872(4) does not require an agency
that receives a misdirected request to provide an email address of the proper records
custodian, it does require the agency to identify the proper records custodian.1
1
After this appeal was initiated, the Department provided the name and email address of the
Complex to the Appellant and requested that the appeal be considered moot. See 40 KAR 1:030 § 6 (“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.”). But the requested records have yet
to be “made available” to the Appellant, and so this appeal is not moot.Accordingly, the Department violated the Act when it did not identify the Complex’s
records custodian.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
#497
Distributed to:
Vivian Miles
Michelle Harrison, Executive Advisor, Justice and Public Safety Cabinet
Renee Day, Paralegal, Justice and Public Safety Cabinet
Ann Smith, Executive Staff Advisor, Justice and Public Safety Cabinet
2
The Appellant also complains that the Complex’s name and email address are not available on its
website. However, that issue is not before the Office because the Complex is not a party to this appeal.
Further, the Appellant did not previously raise the issue of the Complex website’s compliance with the
Act. See, e.g., 22-ORD-165 (holding a person must first submit to the agency a request to inspect
records or a complaint alleging the agency’s failure to comply with the Act before seeking the Office’s
review under KRS 61.880(2)).