26-ORD-138 – Kelly Young/Oldham County Detention Center

Opinion Content:

March 31, 2026

In re: Kelly Young/Oldham County Detention Center

Summary: The Oldham County Detention Center (“the Center”)
violated the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when its initial response did
not explain the basis of its denial. The Center did not violate the Act
when it withheld records exempted by federal law.

Open Records Decision

On February 20, 2026, Kelly Young (“Appellant”) submitted a request to the
Center seeking records containing particular “data elements” related to Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) detainers dated from February 5, 2025, to
February 5, 2026. Those “data elements” include the (1) “unique internal booking or
inmate identification number,” (2) “[b]ooking date and time,” (3) “[d]ate and time the
individual became eligible for release from criminal custody,” (4) “[a]ctual release
date and time,” (5) “[a]n indicator reflecting whether an ICE detainer was present,”
(6) “[d]ate and time the ICE detainer was received, if recorded by the jail, and (7)
“[d]ate and time of transfer to ICE custody or expiration of any hold, if recorded.” The
Appellant further stated that her request was limited to records created by the Center
and does not seek “ICE-generated documents.”

In a timely response, the Center denied the request, stating that under 8 C.F.R.
§ 236.6, 1 “any information regarding Immigration and Customs Enforcement must
be requested directly from Immigration and Customs Enforcement.” This appeal
followed.

1 This federal regulation is incorporated into the Act by KRS 61.878(1)(k).

When a public agency denies a request for 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). The
agency must “provide particular and detailed information” in giving its explanation,
not merely a “limited and perfunctory response.” Edmondson v. Alig, 926 S.W.2d 856,
858 (Ky. 1996). “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). Thus, when the agency
withholds records under KRS 61.878(1)(k), which applies to “public records or
information the disclosure of which is prohibited by federal law or regulation or state
law,” it must identify the provision of law that prohibits disclosure. See Edmondson,
926 S.W.2d at 858; see also 20-ORD-060; 97-ORD-178. Here, the Center cited 8 C.F.R.
§ 236.6 without explaining why the withheld records are exempt under that section.
Therefore, the Center’s initial response violated the Act.

On appeal, the Center has elaborated on its reliance on 8 C.F.R. § 236.6. That
regulation provides that “[n]o . . . state or local government entity . . . that houses,
maintains, provides services to, or otherwise holds any detainee on behalf of the
Service . . . shall disclose or otherwise permit to be made public the name of, or other
information relating to, such detainee.” 8 C.F.R. § 236.6. Moreover, the regulation
states that “[s]uch information shall be under the control of the Service and shall be
subject to public disclosure only pursuant to the provisions of applicable federal laws,
regulations and executive orders. Insofar as any documents or other records contain
such information, such documents shall not be public records.” 2

The Appellant argues that 8 C.F.R. § 236.6 is inapplicable because she seeks
only records “created and maintained” by the Center. For its part, the Center explains
that the “request clearly seeks information regarding detainees,” and 8 C.F.R. § 236.6
“does not differentiate based on the originating source of the records or information.”
Rather, “if an agency houses federal ICE detainees, the agency cannot disclose
information about those detainees.” The Center is correct. The Office previously held
that immigration detainers and associated records were properly withheld under 8
C.F.R. § 236.6 and KRS 61.878(1)(k). See, e.g., 17-ORD-159 (finding that 8 C.F.R.
§ 236.6 prohibited the agency from disclosing immigration detainers); see also 25-
ORD-337. The present request provides no basis for the Office to depart from its prior
holding. Rather, it is readily apparent that the Appellant has requested records
including “the name of, or other information relating to, such detainee[s].” 3 Thus, the

2 As used in the regulation, “Service” means U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S.
Customs and Border Protection, or U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 8 C.F.R. § 1.2
3 Alternatively, the Appellant argues the Center must separate exempt and nonexempt information
and produce redacted records. See KRS 61.878(4). However, 8 C.F.R. § 236.6 provides, “Insofar as any
documents or other records contain such information, such documents shall not be public records.” As
a result, 8 C.F.R. § 236.6 does not allow a public agency to release redacted records.

requested records are exempt under KRS 61.878(1)(k) and 8 C.F.R. § 236.6. The
Center 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/ Zachary M. Zimmerer
Zachary M. Zimmerer
Assistant Attorney General

Kelly Young, Appellant
Jeff Tindall, Jailer, Oldham County Detention Center
Jessica Childers, Chief Deputy, Oldham County Detention Center
David Berry Baxter, Oldham County Attorney