26-ORD-092 – Carlos Thurman/Southeast State Correctional Complex

Opinion Content:

March 12, 2026

In re: Carlos Thurman/Southeast State Correctional Complex

Summary: The Southeast State Correctional Complex (“the Complex”)
did not violate the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it denied a request
for copies of inmate video visit recordings that are purely personal
communications under KRS 61.878(1)(s).

Open Records Decision

Inmate Carlos Thurman (“Appellant”) submitted a request to the Complex for
a copy of “the recording of the video visit” he had on a particular date. The Complex
denied the request because the requested record “is not retained by [the Complex]”
and “the holder of the requested documentation if it does exist would be” Securus
Technologies, Inc. (“Securus”). The Complex provided the mailing address of Securus
to the Appellant. This appeal followed.

On appeal, the Complex explains that the video requested by the Appellant is
not a public record within the meaning of KRS 61.870(2). Opposing the Complex’s
argument, the Appellant claims the recordings are “public records” because the
Complex has access to the video. But an agency’s mere “access” to electronic records,
without more, does not make them “public records” for purposes of the Act. See 22-
ORD-131. Rather, under KRS 61.870(2), “public record” includes “all books, papers,
maps, photographs, cards, tapes, discs, diskettes, recordings, software, or other
documentation regardless of physical form or characteristics, which are prepared,
owned, used, in the possession of or retained by a public agency.”

The Complex asserts that the video visit recording is akin to JPay emails
between inmates and private parties, which the Office has found are generally not
“public records.” See 20-ORD-109. However, in a similar appeal, the Office has found

that “video visit records” in possession of Securus were “owned” by the public agency1
and, therefore, were “public records” under KRS 61.870(2). See 23-ORD-344. There,
the Master Services Agreement between the public agency and Securus stated that
the public agency “retain[s] custody and ownership of all recordings.” Thus, the Office
held that the video visit recordings were “public records” because they were owned by
the public agency. Here, though, the Office is not in possession of the relevant services
agreement between the Complex and Securus, meaning the Office cannot resolve the
dispute regarding their status as public records. Nevertheless, even if the video visit
recording in question is a public record, it is exempt from disclosure.

Here, the recording the Appellant requested are not communications of public
agencies or their employees, but personal communications between an inmate and
third parties. As the Supreme Court of Kentucky has noted, “the policy of disclosure
is purposed to subserve the public interest, not to satisfy the public’s curiosity.” Ky.
Bd. of Exam’rs of Psychologists v. Courier-Journal & Louisville Times Co., 826 S.W.2d
324, 328 (Ky. 1992). This public interest “focuses on the citizens’ right to be informed
as to what their government is doing.” Zink v. Commonwealth, Dep’t of Workers’
Claims, 902 S.W.2d 825, 829 (Ky. App. 1994). Thus, under KRS 61.878(1)(s),
“[c]ommunications of a purely personal nature unrelated to any governmental
function” are exempt from public disclosure. Because the content of inmates’ private
communications is purely personal and unrelated to any governmental function, the
recordings the Appellant seeks are exempt under KRS 61.878(1)(s). See 23-ORD-344.
Thus, the Complex did not violate the Act when it denied the Appellant’s request.

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 [email protected].

Russell Coleman
Attorney General

/s/ Matthew Ray
Matthew Ray
Assistant Attorney General

1 The public agency in that decision was a county jail, not a state correctional facility.

Carlos Thurman #112192
Michelle Harrison
Nathan Goens
Charles Bates
Sarah Talarigo
Ann Smith