By Michael R. Grigsby, Editor | Somerset-Pulaski Advocate
Updated on May 9, 2026, to include a statement regarding the latest Notice of Compliance and additional review and analysis of the Court’s order.
The following statement was provided by Bobby Gumm, who submitted the original open records request at issue in the case.
This update was published on Facebook on May 9, 2026:
"The attorney for the Pulaski County Detention Center filed a 'Notice of Compliance,' claiming the requested records and recordings have been sent to the Court. However, the filing comes with a significant catch: they are requesting another hearing before a single record is released to the public.
According to their response, they are now seeking:
• Broad protective orders to limit dissemination.
• Strict limits on which records can be seen.
• Preservation of appeal rights to further extend this timeline.
© 2026 SPA. All rights reserved. No use or duplication without permission.
Furthermore, the jail argues that security footage should remain hidden, citing 'security concerns.' While safety is paramount, transparency and safety are not mutually exclusive. These request in no way reduces the security of Pulaski Co Jail, nor does it increase risk to staff or inmates.
All of this including the cost of hiring outside legal counsel from another county is being billed to the taxpayers of Pulaski County. It raises three unavoidable questions:
1. Why continue delaying the release after the Court has already granted access?
2. Why spend more taxpayer money to fight transparency?
3. Why the sudden urgency for a hearing now, just days before an election?"1
--end of statement--
Review of the Order on Petition for Review on Appeal 1st day of May 2026
In a May 1, 2026 order, the Pulaski Circuit Court largely affirmed the Kentucky Attorney General’s finding that the Pulaski County Detention Center violated portions of the Kentucky Open Records Act in response to requests submitted by Bobby Gumm regarding inmate deaths, employee records, and commissary-related financial records.
The Court agreed that the term “in-custody death” was not too ambiguous to process under the Open Records Act and clarified that deaths occurring after a medical transfer from the jail may still qualify as “in-custody” if the inmate remained under detention authority at the time of death.
Of particular public interest, the Court rejected broad hypothetical justifications for withholding records and stated that the detention center must identify when investigations are actually ongoing rather than denying records based on the mere possibility of an investigation.
The ruling also addressed concerns involving HIPAA and jail security. The Court indicated that sensitive medical information could be protected through redactions or protective orders rather than wholesale denial of records requests. Likewise, the Court stated that security concerns involving jail surveillance footage could potentially be handled through restricted disclosure orders.
Importantly, the Court ordered the detention center to provide responsive records concerning in-custody deaths occurring between February 2021 and February 2026 that are not currently under investigation. Those materials are to be submitted directly to the Court for in camera review, after which the judge will determine what records should be released under the Open Records Act.
The Court also acknowledged the detention center’s position that some older records may no longer exist due to a five-year records retention policy and stated it could not compel production of records no longer possessed by the agency. 2
Footnotes for the updates added to this review on May 9th, 2026
1 Statement posted publicly by Bobby Gumm on Facebook, May 9, 2026.
2 Pulaski County Detention Center v. Gumm, No. 26-CI-00402, Order on Petition for Review on Appeal, Pulaski Circuit Court, Division I (Ky. Cir. Ct. May 1, 2026).
The above review and analysis are based on publicly available court records and are provided for general informational purposes only. This content does not constitute legal advice, legal representation, or an official interpretation of the Court’s ruling. Readers are encouraged to review the full order and consult qualified legal counsel for legal guidance or interpretation.
---end of the May 9th, 2026, review update--
Original Post
Appeals Hearing in Circuit Court
1 May 2026, 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).
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.