26-ORD-108 – Michelle Green-Young/Fayette County Detention Center

Opinion Content:

March 19, 2026

In re: Michelle Green-Young/Fayette County Detention Center

Summary: The Fayette County Detention Center (“the Center”)
violated the Open Records Act (“the Act”) by failing to cite the applicable
statutory exception and explain how it applied to records it was
withholding under KRS 61.880(1), and by failing to separate any exempt
material from the records per KRS 61.878(4).

Open Records Decision

On February 18, 2026, Michelle Green-Young (“the Appellant”) a Special
Investigator with the Department of Public Advocacy, submitted two requests to the
Center, asking for copies of the “current policy and procedures manual or (Standard
Operations Procedures/General Order manual)” and “the policies and procedures of
the Fayette County Detention Center regarding strip search of inmates when they
first come to the facility and are booked,” respectively. In separate but identical
response letters, both dated February 18, 2026, the Center denied each request
because the “Division of Community Correction[s]’s policies and procedures are not
subject to Open Record Requests due to the information provided being directly
related to the safety and security of the Division.” This appeal followed.

On appeal, the Appellant clarifies that she is asking for “general policy and
procedural guidance governing jail operations and standards” rather than “facility
schematics, security layouts, or information identifying specific security
vulnerabilities.” Accordingly, the Appellant asks the Office to review the denials by
the Center and direct the Center “to release the requested updated FCDC
manual/strip search policy.” In response, the Center invokes, for the first time,
KRS 197.025(1) and (6), both of which are incorporated into the Act by
KRS 61.878(1)(l), to justify its denial of both requests. The Center argues that
KRS 197.025 “empowers the commissioner or his designee to determine if disclosure
would constitute a security threat.” The commissioner’s determination of what
constitutes a security threat has historically been afforded deference. 25-ORD-400;
see, e.g., 25-ORD-146 (finding the correctional facility properly denied a request for

policies, procedures, and training materials regarding an “inmate observers”
program).

Here, the Center maintains “there are numerous safety risks tied to the release
of [its] policies and procedures, including inmate-on-inmate assault or coordinated
resistance, exposure of officer response procedures and detection methods, and
operational vulnerabilities an inmate may attempt to exploit.” Regarding policies
relating to strip searches of inmates upon arrival in particular, the Center argues
that such information “is especially vulnerable to planned concealment, smuggling,
and subterfuge.” Although the Center maintains that “policies addressing security
and control remain exempt under KRS 197.025, and in particular those involving
strip searches,” the Center further advises on appeal that the “Commissioner’s
designee has conducted an additional review following this appeal and will produce
those policies and procedures that do not implicate institutional safety or security
concerns.”

When a public agency denies a request for public records, it must “include a
statement of the specific exception authorizing the withholding of the record and a
brief explanation of how the exception applies to the record withheld.” KRS 61.880(1);
61.880(2)(c). The agency must “provide particular and detailed information,” not
merely a “limited and perfunctory response.” Edmondson v. Alig, 926 S.W.2d 856, 858
(Ky. 1996). In other words, “The agency’s explanation must be detailed enough to
permit [a reviewing] court to assess its claim and the opposing party to challenge it.”
Ky. New Era, Inc. v. City of Hopkinsville, 415 S.W.3d 76, 81 (Ky. 2013). Here, the
Center apparently intended to rely upon KRS 197.025(1) and (6). 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.” However, the Center did not initially cite either of these provisions or
explain how they applied to the specific records being withheld. The Center merely
stated it was denying both requests “due to the information provided being directly
related to the safety and security of the Division.” Thus, the Center’s initial response
failed to comply with KRS 61.880(1) and violated the Act. 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

1 Historically, the Office has 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 affirmed the denials of requests by inmates for copies of records containing
information revealing correctional facility staffing and security operations. See, e.g., 22-ORD-088; 08-
ORD-148; 06-ORD-160; 04-ORD-180. Here, the question of whether the Center’s belated invocation of
KRS 197.025(1) and (6) was justified as to portions of the records it ultimately withheld after
separating the exempt material per KRS 61.878(4) is not ripe for review.

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 [email protected].

Russell Coleman
Attorney General

/s/ Michelle D. Harrison
Michelle D. Harrison
Assistant Attorney General

Michelle Greem-Young, Appellant
Michael Cravens, Managing Attorney, Department of Law, Lexington-Fayette Urban
County Government
Evan P. Thompson, Attorney, Lexington