By Michael R. Grigsby, Editor | Somerset-Pulaski Advocate
Appeals Hearing in Circuit Court
Somerset, KY (SPA)---Sources attending court on Thursday indicate that Pulaski County circuit judge upheld a prior determination by the Kentucky Attorney General finding that the Pulaski County Detention Center (PCDC) violated the Kentucky Open Records Act in its handling of a request for records related to in-custody deaths.
Background
The request, filed by Bobby Gumm, sought records documenting any in-custody deaths at the facility between 2019 and 2026. After the detention center denied the request, Gumm appealed to the Attorney General’s Office.
In its decision, (26-ORD-141, April 1, 2026), the Attorney General concluded that PCDC improperly denied the request by:
-
claiming the term “in-custody death” was ambiguous, and
-
citing multiple exemptions without explaining how they applied to specific records
The decision further clarified that an inmate remains “in custody” even when transported to a hospital, rejecting the jail’s argument that such cases may fall outside the scope of the request (pp. 2-3).
© 2026 SPA. All rights reserved. No use or duplication without permission.
The Attorney General also found that the detention center failed to provide the level of detail required under Kentucky law when asserting exemptions, noting that generalized claims about investigations, HIPAA, or security risks were insufficient without identifying specific records or explaining the risk (p. 4).
Following that ruling, PCDC again declined to release the records and appealed the decision to circuit court.
Day in Court
According to sources in attendance at Thursday’s hearing, Honorable Judge Teresa Whitaker agreed with the Attorney General’s findings, stating that the records are subject to the Open Records Act.
However, rather than ordering immediate public release, the court directed PCDC to submit the requested records to the court within 10 calendar days—including weekends—for review. The judge will examine the records to determine whether any portions qualify for exemption and whether an order is warranted.
During the hearing, counsel for PCDC argued that some records may involve active investigations, contain protected health information, or pose institutional security risks. The court acknowledged that certain records may require protection but emphasized that not all records meet those criteria, noting that some cases referenced are closed and should have been released.
The court also addressed liability concerns, stating that disclosure made pursuant to a court order would shield the detention center from legal exposure related to privacy or confidentiality claims.
Additional arguments included whether inmates transported to hospitals remain “in custody”—an argument previously rejected in the Attorney General’s decision—and whether video records fall within the scope of the request. Although the original request referenced documents, video was discussed in court as potentially falling within that definition and may be included in the court’s review.
According to individuals present, the hearing included representation for PCDC, which did not include Jailer Anthony McCollum, the requester appearing without counsel, and a small number of community members, including former detention center staff. No local media outlets were observed in attendance.
The court’s next step will be to review the submitted records following the 10-day deadline and determine what, if any, materials will be released to the public.
SPA is currently awaiting the circuit clerk’s filing and entry of the official record from the April 30 hearing. A certified copy will be requested once it becomes available.
Please send errors or corrections to info@somerset-pulaski-advocate.org and provide documentation that supports the changes to be made.
*******
(C) 2026 Somerset-Pulaski Advocate. All Rights Reserved
This content is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or an authoritative interpretation of any law, regulation, or court decision. The information presented reflects a general overview based on publicly available sources and may not account for all relevant facts or legal nuances. No conclusions should be drawn regarding specific individuals, agencies, or situations. Readers should consult qualified legal counsel or appropriate officials for guidance on specific circumstances.
SPA is a volunteer-led initiative. We are not funded by any candidate, campaign, or entity and do not endorse political candidates. Content is based on publicly available records and analysis for informational purposes. The information or views here do not represent that of any government agency.