Decision Likely Headed To Court
On April 1, 2026, the Kentucky Attorney General found that the Pulaski County Detention Center violated the state’s Open Records Act after denying a request for in-custody death records, setting up a legal dispute that is expected to continue in circuit court.
Image by Wan | Adobe Stock
Attorney General Summary:
"The Pulaski County Detention Center ('the Center') violated the Open Records Act ('the Act') when it denied a request as ambiguous and overly broad and did not explain how its cited exemptions applied to the records withheld. (...)"
Excerpt from the Decision Concerning the Violation
"... the Center claims the term 'in-custody death' is unclear because an inmate housed at the Center might either die while at the Center or at an emergency facility. The Office disagrees. 'In-custody death' clearly refers to the death of any inmate that occurs while the Center maintains custody of that individual. The Center does not argue that it relinquishes custody of an inmate when he or she is transferred to a medical facility. Thus, even if an inmate has a medical emergency at the Center but dies later at an emergency facility not located at the Center, that does not change the of the fact that the inmate was in 'custody' at the time of death. Accordingly, the Center violated the Act when it denied this request as ambiguous and overbroad.
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).
The Center cites several exemptions under the Act but has not explained their applicability to the records that are responsive to this request. Regarding KRS 61.878(1)(h) and KRS 17.150(2), the Center says that records relating to deaths currently being investigated may be withheld. The Center does not state whether any such investigations are currently ongoing but merely hypothesizes that such an investigation might be possible. Regarding KRS 61.878(1)(a) and HIPAA, the Center does not identify any records exempt under those provisions or explain what information they contain that is exempt. Regarding KRS 197.025(1), the Center says that responsive records 'may constitute a threat to inmates, correctional staff, and the' Center. It does not identify any records that would pose such a threat, describe their contents, or explain how their disclosure would cause a threat. As such, the Center has not complied with KRS 61.880(1) when withholding records responsive to this request. The Center therefore violated the Act.
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 from the date of this decision."
This AG decision addresses three open records requests, the "in-custody deaths," a staff roster, which was initially denied but released as positions and position descriptions upon appeal, and a request for the records related to the commissary accounts, which the jail claims they do not maintain or possess. See the full decision below.