25-ORD-049
February 18, 2025
In re: Alena Noakes/Department of Corrections
Summary: The Department of Corrections (“the Department”) did not
violate the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it denied requests for
records that, if released, could pose a security threat to the safety of a
correctional facility.
Open Records Decision
Alena Noakes (“Appellant”) submitted a request to the Department seeking
“staffing records” of the Kentucky State Reformatory (“the Reformatory”) from
January 2020 to the date of the request. She specified the request sought “data of
what would be considered a ‘full’ staff of corrections officers, the actual staffing
numbers for corrections officers and the number of vacancies for corrections officers.”
The Appellant also sought the Reformatory’s staffing levels on November 10, 2024.
In response, the Department provided responsive records with personal information
redacted under KRS 61.878(1)(a) but denied her request for “the staffing numbers,
vacancies, and staffing levels pursuant to” KRS 197.025(1), which is incorporated into
the Act by KRS 61.878(1)(l), because the “information could provide opportunities for
inmates to engage in activities which threaten the safety of staff, inmates, and the
public.”
The Appellant submitted a second request seeking “public records of the
escape” of a specific inmate. She specified the request sought information regarding
“when the [Reformatory] determined [the inmate] escaped[,] how he managed to do
so,” and “when the prison captain became aware of” the escape. The Appellant also
requested “surveillance video” depicting the inmate’s “escape from the prison.” In
response, the Department provided the “Incident Report Summary” with personal
information redacted under KRS 61.878(1)(a). However, the Department redacted
“information regarding the escape of [the inmate] and security threat groupinformation” under KRS 197.025(1). Citing the same exemption, the Department
withheld security photos and surveillance video because the “information would
provide opportunities for inmates to engage in activities which threaten the safety of
staff, inmates, and the public by revealing vulnerabilities in the current system.”
This appeal, challenging the Department’s invocation of KRS 197.025(1) in
response to each request, 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” (emphasis added). This Office has historically
deferred to the judgment of the correctional facility in determining whether the
release of certain records would constitute a security threat.
To start, the Office has upheld the denial of security footage multiple times
under KRS 197.025(1). See, e.g., 23-ORD-089; 18-ORD-074; 13-ORD-022; 10-ORD-
055. The release of security footage poses a security risk because it may disclose the
“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. Here, the Department explained that the video footage can be used to “reveal
the methods or practices used to record the videos.” Moreover, the Department
explained that the video would reveal “the areas that are within the view of the
cameras and where blind spots or areas beyond the range of the security cameras are
located.” Accordingly, the Department did not violate the Act when it withheld the
requested video because it has adequately explained how KRS 197.025(1) applied to
the record withheld.
Similarly, the Office has upheld the denial of requests for records containing
information about correctional facility staffing and security operations. See, e.g., 22-
ORD-088; 08-ORD-148; 06-ORD-160; 04-ORD-180. Here, the Department explains
that “disclosure of staffing records would reveal patterns of staffing, including which
posts are filled as opposed to which are periodically unmanned, and it would also
show where the institution would be vulnerable to outside attack; escape attempts;
or hostage taking.” The Appellant points to statements by executive officials
describing staffing shortages within the Department as evidence that release of
staffing records would not be a security risk. But describing general staffing
shortages not tied to a single facility does not present the same security risk as
disclosing staffing records of a particular facility.
Finally, regarding its redactions to the “Incident Report Summary,” the
Department maintains that the redacted information “would provide opportunities
for inmates to engage in activities which threaten the safety of staff, inmates, andthe public by revealing vulnerabilities in the current system.” Indeed, the Office need
not imagine how redacted “records of the escape” would reveal vulnerabilities in the
Penitentiary’s security system related to escape. Accordingly, the Department did not
violate the Act when redacting “records of the escape” from the “Incident Report
Summary.”
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
#038
Distributed to:
Alena Noakes
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