Can a city release a police detective's name with her salary and job position under FOIA when the detective fears the release will harm her family?

Plain-English summary

Detective Charity Abbott of the Fort Smith Police Department was one of the city employees whose name and salary appeared in records the city planned to release in response to a roster FOIA request. She objected, saying release "may subject [her] and [her] family to possible harm."

Attorney General Leslie Rutledge issued this opinion the same day she issued Op. Att'y Gen. 2021-084 (Striplin) and 2021-086 (Captain Gallant) on essentially the same fact pattern: same FOIA request to Fort Smith, same custodian decision to release names with standard redactions, same subjective objection from a city employee.

The answer is the same: release is consistent with FOIA. Names, job positions, and salaries of public employees, including police officers, are personnel records. They fail the Young v. Rice balancing test because the public interest in basic employment information substantially outweighs any privacy interest. The fact that Abbott is in a sensitive role (detective work) does not change the rule for the name-title-salary triplet, which is the only data being released under the request.

The opinion incorporates by reference the substantive analysis in Op. Att'y Gen. 2021-084. For the full reasoning, see the [parent opinion](2021-0084-is-the-request-for-employees-full-name-along-with-job-positi.md).

What this means for you

If you are a police officer or other safety-sensitive public employee

The fact that your work involves risk does not, by itself, defeat release of your name, title, and salary in an FOIA roster request. The standard redactions still apply, so your home address, personal phone, family details, DOB, and SSN come out. But your name, position, and pay number stay.

If you have specific, documented threats (not just generic safety concerns), separate state or court remedies may be available, including, in some cases, court orders restricting public disclosure of identifying information. Talk to your agency counsel or a security-and-employment attorney. The FOIA AG-review process is not the right venue for that kind of argument.

For undercover officers specifically, § 25-19-105(b)(10) protects identifying information, but the protection is for the undercover capacity, not for an officer's general identity in standard work.

If you are a records custodian for a police department or sheriff's office

Police-officer salary roster requests follow the same rule as everyone else. Names, ranks, and salaries come out. Standard redactions apply. Subject objections from individual officers are not legally sufficient to block release of basic employment data. The AG's view in this opinion (and in 2021-084 and 2021-086) is consistent across these fact patterns.

If you have a specific officer assigned to active undercover work whose identity is genuinely operationally sensitive, the § 25-19-105(b)(10) protection should be applied. That is a narrow category, not a default for the whole department.

Common questions

Q: Why is this opinion so short?
A: Because the AG had already issued the substantive analysis the same day, in Op. Att'y Gen. 2021-084 (to Bill Striplin). She referred Detective Abbott to that opinion for the reasoning rather than repeating it. The legal answer for all three Fort Smith employees who objected is the same.

Q: Are detectives treated differently from other public employees? A: Not for purposes of the personnel-records balancing test on names, titles, and salaries. Different rules apply for officers in active undercover roles (§ 25-19-105(b)(10)), but a detective whose work is generally not undercover is treated like any other public employee for FOIA-roster purposes.

Q: What about my family's safety?
A: A subjective concern about family safety is not enough to defeat release under the personnel-records balancing test. The test is objective. If you have a specific documented threat or court order, you may have separate remedies, but those are not within the AG's FOIA-review authority.

Q: How do I get the full analysis?
A: Read Op. Att'y Gen. 2021-084 (Striplin), which lays out the full Young v. Rice balancing test and the redaction list. This opinion expressly incorporates that analysis.

Background and statutory framework

This is one of three Fort Smith roster opinions issued the same day:

• Op. Att'y Gen. 2021-084 (Bill Striplin) - the foundational analysis.
• Op. Att'y Gen. 2021-085 (Detective Charity Abbott) - this opinion.
• Op. Att'y Gen. 2021-086 (Captain Ronald Gallant).

A fourth opinion the next week, Op. Att'y Gen. 2021-087 (Richard Hamrick), addressed the same Fort Smith request from yet another subject's perspective and reached the same answer.

The framework: Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12) makes personnel records exempt only "to the extent disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy," tested under the Young v. Rice two-step balancing. Names, titles, and salaries do not pass either step against release.

Citations

• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12) (personnel records exception)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (custodian-opinion procedure)
• Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992)
• Op. Att'y Gen. 2021-084 (parent opinion with full analysis)
• Op. Att'y Gen. 2021-086 (companion opinion, same date)
• Op. Att'y Gen. 2021-087 (later companion opinion, same Fort Smith request)
• Ops. Att'y Gen. 2012-014, 2011-132, 2011-045, 2011-114, 2002-107, 96-205 (long-running line on names, titles, salaries)

Source

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

Original opinion text

Opinion No. 2021-085
October 11, 2021
Detective Charity Abbott
c/o Rick Lolley, Director
Fort Smith Human Resources
P.O. Box 1908
Fort Smith, AR 72902
Dear Detective Abbott:
STATE OF ARKANSAS
ATTORNEY GENERAL
LESLIE RUTLEDGE

You have requested my opinion regarding the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"). Your request, which is made as the subject of the records, is based on Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (Supp. 2021). 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 indicates that the City of Fort Smith has received a request under the FOIA for "records that show all current employees' salaries, with their names and job position and any salary increases since 2015." The records custodian has determined that the requested records are releasable, and has stated that "[n]o sensitive personal information such as address, date of birth, telephone number or social security information will be released." You object to the release of your name in conjunction with the other requested records because you believe this release may subject you and your family to possible harm. You ask whether the decision to release the requested records, specifically your name, 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 have responded to in Op. Att'y Gen. 2021-084, published of even date. As set out in that opinion, this office has long and consistently opined that the release of public employees' names, job positions, and salary must be evaluated under the provision of the FOIA applicable to "personnel records," and that the release of such information generally does not rise to the level of a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. You ask whether disclosing documents that reflect your name, job position, and salary would amount to a "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" under this balancing test. In my opinion, it does not. It has long been the opinion of this office that the public interest in this type of basic employment information is substantial and any potential privacy interest does not outweigh it.

The legal analysis provided in Opinion 2021-084 and its application to your request are the same. Therefore, I will not repeat the opinion herein, but instead refer you to the enclosed Opinion 2021-084 for the substantive analysis.

Sincerely,
LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General

[Footnotes:
1 E.g., Ops. Att'y Gen. 2012-014, 2011-132, 2011-045, 2011-114, 2002-107, 96-205. 2 E.g., Ops. Att'y Gen. 2012-014 and 2011-045. 3 E.g., Op. Att'y Gen. 2008-050 and the line cited therein.]