25-ORD-091
April 3, 2025
In re: Glenn Odom/Kentucky State Penitentiary
Summary: The Kentucky State Penitentiary (“the Penitentiary”) did
not violate the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it redacted records to
remove information posing a security threat under KRS 197.025(1).
Open Records Decision
On February 14, 2025, inmate Glenn Odom (“the Appellant”) submitted a
request to the Penitentiary for an incident report involving the Appellant dated June
17, 2023.1 In a timely response, the Penitentiary provided a redacted version of the
incident report. It stated that the redactions were “necessary due to . . . significant
response information that poses a risk if released to the inmate population or public.”
Thus, it stated, the “release of restraint, extraction, or use-of-force records for an
adult correctional institution is a security risk because of disclosure of use-of-force
procedures and training from secured policies and procedures and the risk of
retaliation to staff” under KRS 197.025(1) and (6) and KRS 61.878(1)(l). The
Penitentiary also stated it made separate redactions of sections describing “staff’s
actions, & information that were not specific to/involving [the Appellant, which] are
exempt from disclosure” under KRS 61.878(1)(l) and KRS 197.025(2). This appeal
followed.
The Appellant claims the Penitentiary’s redactions were improper because “the
information does not relate to ‘restraint, extraction, or use of force’ in any way.” The
Penitentiary, however, states the redacted material nevertheless constitutes a
security risk. 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.” Here, the Penitentiary asserts that the incident
report summary, which relates to the Appellant’s possession of a weapon fashioned
1
The Appellant also requested certain other records, but he does not appeal from the Penitentiary’s
disposition of those portions of the request.from an ink pen and a razor blade, includes detailed accounts of staff members’
response to the incident and subsequent investigation. The Penitentiary further
claims the redactions consist of “response information, security details, and methods
of the investigation, which, if produced, would compromise [its] ability to control
contraband and detect future rule violations or crimes.”
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 upheld the denial of reports
containing details of correctional staff’s response to incidents, security details, and
methods of investigation. See, e.g., 17-ORD-229; 17-ORD-097; 16-ORD-247. There is
no reason for the Office to retreat from these prior decisions. Accordingly, the
Penitentiary did not violate the Act when it redacted portions of the incident report
summary under KRS 197.025(1).
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
#104
Distribution:
Glenn Odom, #219489
S. Nathan Goens, Esq.
Ms. Renee Day
Ms. Ann Smith