25-ORD-015
January 15, 2025
In re: Kyle Thompson/Little Sandy Correctional Complex
Summary: The Little Sandy Correctional Complex (“the Complex”) did
not violate the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it denied an inmate’s
request for employee emails that, if released, would constitute a security
threat under KRS 197.025(1).
Open Records Decision
Inmate Kyle Thompson (“Appellant”) submitted a request to the Complex for
“any and all emails relating to” him sent from a specific employee “to any other
[Complex] employees” during a specific period. The Complex denied the request under
KRS 197.025(1) because inmates possessing “copies of emails for staff and medical
personnel that have dates and times has been deemed a security threat by the
Warden.” This appeal followed.
Under KRS 197.025(1), “no person shall have access to any records if the
disclosure is 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).
On appeal, the Complex explains that it “does not advise inmates in advance
when they will be transported outside of the [Complex] because if they have advance
notice they could potentially coordinate with friends and family on the outside to
either facilitate an escape or smuggle contraband back to the prison.” The Complex
further explains that the records at issue in this appeal, if released, would reveal such
information. Although the Office has not previously addressed the assertion that
records containing information about prospective transfers constitutes a securitythreat under KRA 197.025(1), it has previously upheld denials of inspection of records
that the correctional facility explained could facilitate escape or the smuggling of
contraband. See, e.g., 24-ORD-174 (upholding the denial of photographs that could
“be used to create false identification and facilitate escape”); 24-ORD-055 (upholding
the denial of body scan images that could reveal “where one could hide contraband to
escape detection”); 23-ORD-083 (upholding an agency’s decision to not provide inmate
with requested records on a disk because digital storage devices “can store
information concerning escape [and] smuggling”). Here, the Complex has explained
how release of the requested emails would pose a security risk. Accordingly, the
Complex did not violate the Act when it withheld emails that would reveal an
inmate’s prospective transfer and, if released, would pose a security risk under
KRS 197.025(1).
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/ Matthew Ray
Matthew Ray
Assistant Attorney General
#513
Distributed to:
Kyle Thompson #248317
Michelle Harrison
Renee Day
Ann Smith