Could a Kentucky prison deny an inmate access to transfer forms despite a facility policy favoring release?

Plain-English summary

An inmate sought his transfer recommendation and authorization forms, pointing to a correctional facility policy that called for their release. The Kentucky Attorney General said in 1992 that the facility could invoke KRS 197.025 when disclosure was deemed a threat to inmate, staff or institutional security. It upheld the denial of these forms despite the local policy. The AG separately said the prison’s written denial should have cited the specific Open Records Act exemption and briefly explained its application, which the response had failed to do.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1992. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Historical summary

Inmates seeking transfer documents

The AG accepted a security basis for withholding the requested forms. A Corrections Cabinet attorney explained that transfer records could refer to conflicts among inmates; release of that information could compromise security. The facility policy cited by the requester did not displace the statutory withholding authority in the AG’s analysis.

Prison records officers issuing denials

The prison cited the inmate-security statute but omitted the specific open-records exemption that incorporated it. The AG treated this as a technical error while upholding the withholding decision. It urged future responses to name the exemption and explain why it applied to the records withheld.

Common questions

Did the inmate receive his transfer recommendation forms?

No. The AG upheld withholding them under the security provision it discussed.

Did a facility release policy prevent use of the statutory security exception?

The AG said no on the facts presented. It accepted that facilities under the Corrections Cabinet could invoke KRS 197.025 for records whose release was deemed a security threat.

Was the written denial fully compliant with the Open Records Act?

No. The AG said it failed to cite the specific open-records exemption and briefly explain its application, even though the withholding itself was proper.

Background and statutory framework

KRS 197.025, as quoted in the 1992 opinion, restricted inmate access where the warden and treatment staff deemed disclosure a security threat. KRS 61.878(1)(j) incorporated statutory confidentiality into the Open Records Act, and KRS 61.880(1) governed explanations in denial letters. The opinion separated the substance of the withholding decision from the defect in the response letter.

Citations and references

• KRS 197.025: inmate-security withholding rule applied by the AG.
• KRS 61.878(1)(j): provision incorporating that restriction into open records.
• KRS 61.880(1): specific-exemption and explanation requirement for denials.

Source

• Landing page: https://kdla.access.preservica.com/uncategorized/IO_d570b5c1-ac07-416d-b22d-8d8175c739fe/
• Original PDF: https://kdla.access.preservica.com/download/file/IO_d570b5c1-ac07-416d-b22d-8d8175c739fe

Original opinion text

OAG 92-26
February 19, 1992
_____
Open Records Appeal
File Identification No. 74
Karl Rudolph______
Ms. Rita Campbell
Records Officer
Blackburn Correctional Complex
3111 Spurr Road
Lexington, KY 40511
Dear Ms. Campbell:
Mr. Karl Rudolph, an inmate at Blackburn Correctional Complex, has appealed tot he Attorney General, pursuant to KRS 61.880, your denial of his January 10, 1992, request to inspect all transfer recommendation and authorization forms in his institutional file from February 12, 1991, to present. You denied Mr. Rudolph’s request in a letter dated January 13, 1992. Although you did not cite the specific exception to the Open Records Act authorizing nondisclosure, you relied on KRS 197.025, which provides: KRS 61.884 and 61.878 to the contrary notwithstanding, no inmate confined in a jail or any facility under the jurisdiction of the Corrections Cabinet shall have access to any records relating to himself or any other inmate if the disclosure is deemed by the warden and treatment staff to constitute a threat to the security of the inmate, any other inmate, correctional staff, or the institution. In his letter of appeal to this Office, Mr. Rudolph notes that Blackburn’s offender’s records policy (BCC 06-02-02) mandates release of transfer recommendations and authorizations. He asks that we review your denial of his request to determine if your actions were consistent with the Open Records Act. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that you properly denied Mr. Rudolph’s request.

Ms. Rita Campbell
Page 2
OAG 92-26
OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
KRS 61.878(1)(j) exempts from public inspection, in the absence of an order of a court of competent jurisdiction, “Public records or information the disclosure of which is prohibited or restricted or otherwise made confidential by enactment of the general assembly.” Although you did not invoke this exception, which incorporates KRS 197.025 into the Open Records Act, you cited the latter provision. KRS 61.880(1) states: An agency response denying, in whole or in part, inspection of any record shall include a statement of the specific exception authorizing the withholding of the record and a brief explanation of how the exception applies to the records withheld. We urge you to review this provision in its entirety to insure that future responses conform tot he Open Records Act. This technical error notwithstanding, we concur with you in your view that KRS 197.025 authorizes nondisclosure of the requested records. In a conversation with the undersigned on February 4, 1992 Ms. Susan Alley, a staff attorney for the Corrections Cabine5t, explained that regardless of offender’s records policies, facilities operating under the jurisdiction of the Cabinet may invoke this provision when, in the exercise of their discretion, they conclude that release of a record may constitute a threat to the security of the inmate, another inmate, or the staff of the institution. She indicated that in many instances transfer recommendation or authorization forms may, for example, refer to conflicts with other inmates. Release of such information could compromise the security of the facility. We therefore conclude that you properly denied Mr. Rudolph’s request. We trust that in the future you will cite the Open Records exception authorizing nondisclosure, and briefly explain how the exception applies to the records withheld pursuant to KRS 61.880(1). As required by statute, a copy of this opinion will be sent to the requesting party, Mr. Karl Rudolph. Both you and Mr. Rudolph may challenge it by initiating an action in the appropriate circuit court pursuant to KRS 61.880(5). Sincerely, CHRIS GORMAN ATTORNEY GENERAL

Amye B. Majors
Assisstant Attorney General
ABM/jlh
c:
Karl Rudolph