Was Little Rock's plan to release an officer's personnel and disciplinary records consistent with the Arkansas FOIA?

Plain-English summary

Officer Jason Harris of the Little Rock Police Department received a FOIA notice from the City of Little Rock indicating that the City planned to release his personnel and disciplinary records, with sensitive personal information (address, date of birth, telephone number, social security number) redacted and evaluation records withheld unless they formed the basis of a finalized suspension or termination. Harris objected and asked the AG, under Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i), whether the custodian's plan was consistent with the Arkansas FOIA.

Then-Attorney General Leslie Rutledge declined to repeat the analysis. The day before, the office had issued Op. Att'y Gen. 2021-003 to Detective Brad Silas of the same department on materially identical facts. The opinion incorporated Op. 2021-003 by reference and enclosed it as the controlling analysis.

The substantive holding (carried over from Op. 2021-003) was that the City's framework was generally consistent with the Arkansas FOIA. Personnel records get the Young v. Rice balancing test under § 25-19-105(b)(12) (with a thumb on the scale toward disclosure). Categorical redactions for personal contact information, date of birth, social security number, and similar items apply on top of the test. Evaluation records under § 25-19-105(c)(1) cannot come out unless all four prongs (suspension/termination, finality, basis, compelling public interest) are met. The City's narrower formulation (which omitted the compelling-interest prong from its written description) is acceptable as long as the full test is applied case by case.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2021. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Why didn't the AG just consolidate the two requests?
Each subject of records files separately under § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i). The AG has a statutory duty to respond to each, even when the analyses overlap. Cross-referencing a contemporaneous opinion is the office's efficient way of meeting both duties without rewriting the framework.

What did Op. 2021-003 actually decide for Detective Silas?
That the City's release plan, redacting personal identifiers and withholding evaluation records absent the four-prong test, was generally consistent with the FOIA. Researchers can find the full text of Op. 2021-003 attached to this opinion in the source PDF or in the Arkansas AG's online opinion database.

Does the cross-reference mean the FOIA framework for police records is locked in?
No. The framework simply applies the standard Arkansas FOIA analysis (Pulaski Cty., Young v. Rice, Thomas v. Hall) to police personnel files. Future cases with materially different facts (an officer in a high-profile shooting, a complaint with a final disciplinary outcome and clear public controversy) could come out differently on the compelling-interest prong.

Is there a "police officer" exception in the Arkansas FOIA?
No general one. The undercover-officer protection at § 25-19-105(b)(10) shields specific identifying information for officers currently working undercover. There is no broader rule that police personnel records are categorically exempt; they get the same Young v. Rice balancing test that applies to other public employees.

Background and statutory framework

The "subject's right to AG review" at § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) is a built-in check for public employees facing the disclosure of their employment records. It lets the subject (and the requester and the custodian) get an advisory opinion before the records leave the file room. The opinions are not binding on a court, but they carry weight in practice and frame the custodian's defense if litigation follows.

The framework Op. 2021-003 laid out (and that this opinion incorporated) is the standard one: classify the record, apply the right test, layer the categorical redactions on top. The personnel-records track gets Young v. Rice balancing; the evaluation-records track gets the four-prong gate. Police records work the same way as any other public-employee records.

Citations

Statutes:

• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (Supp. 2019) (subject's right to AG review)

Cross-referenced AG opinions:

• Op. Att'y Gen. 2021-003 (Detective Brad Silas, City of Little Rock; controlling framework)

Source

• Landing page: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/

Original opinion text

STATE OF ARKANSAS
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Opinion No. 2021-006
January 8, 2021
Jason Harris
c/o City of Little Rock Human Resources
500 West Markham, Suite 130W
Little Rock, AR 72201
Dear Officer Harris:
You have requested my opinion regarding the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"). Your request, which is made as the subject of the requested records, is based on Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (Supp. 2019). This subdivision authorizes the custodian, requester, or the subject of certain employee-related records to seek an opinion from this office stating whether the custodian's decision regarding the release of such records is consistent with the FOIA.

Your correspondence includes the notice you received from the City of Little Rock stating that the City has received a request under the FOIA for your personnel and disciplinary records. The City's custodian of records has determined that "this information is part of your personnel record and is releasable" after redacting "sensitive personal information such as address, date of birth, telephone number or social security number." The City has also informed you that "[e]valuations are not releasable unless they form the basis of a suspension or termination and only if they have reached their final administrative resolution." You object to the release of the records, and have asked for my opinion as to whether the custodian's decisions with respect to the records is consistent with the FOIA.

RESPONSE
Your request for my opinion regarding the custodian's decisions as to the classification and disclosure of your employment-related records, including your objections to those decisions, is virtually identical to the request I responded to in Op. Att'y Gen. 2021-003, published on Thursday, January 7, 2021. The legal analysis and its application to your request consequently are the same as in that previous opinion.

Therefore, I will not repeat the opinion herein, but instead refer you to the enclosed Opinion 2021-003 for the analysis and conclusions.

Sincerely,
LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General

Enclosure: Opinion No. 2021-003