25-ORD-138
May 27, 2025
In re: Jourdan Miller/Louisville Metro Government
Summary: The Louisville Metro Government (“Metro”) did not violate
the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it denied a request for records
that, if released, pose a security threat under KRS 197.025(1).
Open Records Decision
Jourdan Miller (“Appellant”) submitted a request to Metro for certain “[v]ideo
evidence” from a specific camera within a correctional facility. The Appellant limited
the scope of his request to a particular incident and identified the date and time when
the incident occurred.1 Metro denied the request under KRS 197.025(1) because the
“[r]elease of the requested video footage is a security threat[.]”2 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.”3 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.
Specifically, 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
1
The Appellant says he was involved in the specific incident.
2
The Appellant asserts the video footage he requested is “from inside the jail [and] is on the news
all the time.” However, the Appellant does not provide any proof to support this assertion.
3
KRS 197.025(1) is incorporated into the Act by KRS 61.878(1)(l), which applies to records
“otherwise made confidential by enactment of the General Assembly.”“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, Metro denied the request, stating, that the “[r]elease of the requested
video footage is a security threat as it can be viewed by others to assess the [facility’s]
technology and/or procedures” and “may be viewed to develop strategies used to
overtake” its staff. Moreover, Metro explained that the “footage can be used to study
the camera’s range of sight” and “can be used to smuggle contraband” or employ
“other strategies of takeover or escape.” Accordingly, Metro did not violate the Act
when it denied a request for security footage that, if released, would “constitute a
threat to the security of . . . correctional staff, the institution, or any other person.”
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
#191
Distributed to:
Jourdan Miller
Alice Lyon
Nicole Pang
Natalie S. Johnson
Annale Taylor