Can a Sherwood police officer block release of his promotion dates and photo by saying he suspects the requester has bad intentions?
Plain-English summary
Captain K.J. Hartman of the Sherwood Police Department learned that someone had submitted a FOIA request for his promotion dates and a photograph of him. The custodian planned to release. Hartman objected to the photo release because he knew who the requester was and suspected the requester had bad intentions, and he was concerned about what the requester would do with the records.
The AG's response is short and consistent with prior opinions: the requester's intent and motives are irrelevant under Arkansas FOIA. The objection does not block release.
This is the same rule applied in Op. 2023-073 (subject didn't know requester's motive) and many earlier opinions. The rule applies whether the subject does know the requester (as here) or does not know (as in 2023-073). Either way, motive is not an analytical factor.
The substantive items at issue (promotion dates, photograph) are within standard releasable employment information. Promotion dates are part of an employee's career record. Photographs of public employees, especially of those whose roles involve public-facing duties (like a police captain), are routinely releasable. Hartman did not argue that the records were exempt; he argued the requester's identity and intent justified withholding. That argument fails.
The narrow procedural posture: Hartman is the subject of records, exercising his right under § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) to ask the AG to review the custodian's release decision. The AG's review is fast and document-based. The AG cannot adjudicate suspicions about requester intent.
If Hartman believes the requester is engaged in genuine illegal conduct (stalking, harassment), his remedies are outside FOIA: criminal complaints, restraining orders, civil torts. Those channels do account for intent. FOIA itself does not.
What this means for you
Public employees, especially law enforcement
Your photograph and basic career information (hire date, promotion dates, position titles, assignments) are public records under Arkansas FOIA. You cannot block release on motive-based objections. The requester's identity and intent are not factors the custodian weighs.
This rule may feel inconsistent with privacy intuitions. The legal logic is that public records are presumptively public and that a discretionary motive-screening regime would be contrary to FOIA's structure. The framers of FOIA chose categorical disclosure with categorical exemptions, not case-by-case motive review.
Your remedies for genuinely illegal requester conduct are outside FOIA:
- Stalking, harassment, threats: file a police report, seek a restraining order.
- Identity theft or fraud: report to law enforcement and the relevant federal agencies.
- Civil torts (defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress): consult a lawyer.
Records custodians dealing with subject objections
When a subject objects to release on motive-based grounds (whether because they know the requester or don't), document the objection, document your motive-irrelevance analysis, and proceed with release. Cite this opinion (and 2023-073, 2014-094, 2011-095, 2006-118) in your written response to the subject.
Apply standard exemptions to specific exempt items (personal contact information, etc.). Motive does not change the exemption analysis.
Law-enforcement administrators
Train officers on the FOIA framework. Officers often expect more privacy protection than they actually have. Their photographs, career records, and other basic employment information are public.
If officers are concerned about safety implications of public records, work on operational mitigations: use generic department photos for public-facing materials, manage officers' personal social media presence, train on personal-safety practices, and consider what records exist (some agencies have moved away from publishing officer-specific photos in materials they control).
Sherwood Police Department and similar agencies
The release of promotion dates and a photo is consistent with FOIA. Document the release with reasoning. If Captain Hartman has genuine safety concerns, work with him on operational responses (additional patrols, security review, etc.) separate from FOIA.
Subjects of FOIA requests considering challenge strategies
Effective objections focus on:
- Specific items in the records that meet a FOIA exemption (personal contact information, medical details, etc.).
- Procedural errors by the custodian (improper redactions, failure to apply correct test).
- Records that are misclassified (personnel vs. evaluation).
Ineffective objections focus on:
- The requester's identity.
- The requester's suspected intent.
- General privacy preferences.
- The fact that release would be "inconvenient" or "embarrassing."
FOIA requesters
You don't have to identify yourself or explain your purpose. Custodians cannot refuse based on suspicions about your intent. If you face delay or refusal, escalate through the AG-review process or state-court FOIA enforcement.
That said, if you are seeking records about a specific public employee with bad intent (stalking, harassment, threats), do not. Those activities are illegal regardless of FOIA. If your purpose is journalism, research, accountability work, or genuine personal interest, you have nothing to fear from confirming your purpose, but no obligation to do so.
Common questions
The requester is my ex-spouse who has been threatening me. Doesn't that matter?
Not under FOIA. The custodian cannot withhold based on your relationship to the requester. Your remedies are outside FOIA: protective orders, criminal complaints, etc. If you have an active protective order, the order itself may restrict the requester's behavior in ways that don't depend on FOIA.
Can the custodian tell me who requested my records?
The custodian has discretion. Some agencies share requester identity as a courtesy. The requester is generally not required to identify themselves, so the custodian may not know.
Can I FOIA the FOIA request?
Possibly. The text of the request itself is a public record held by the agency. Requesting a copy may tell you who asked and what they asked for. The requester's name (if provided) may or may not be exempt, depending on context.
What about my home address?
Personal contact information of public employees (home address, personal phone, personal email) is exempt under § 25-19-105(b)(13). The custodian must redact those items from any release.
What about my date of birth?
Date of birth in personnel records is generally redacted under personnel-records balancing (Op. 2023-001, 2007-064). The custodian should redact it.
What if my photograph is one used in undercover operations?
That is a different scenario. Records of active undercover operations have specific FOIA exemptions tied to law-enforcement-investigative records. If you are concerned about a specific photograph for operational reasons, raise that with your supervisor and request a formal opinion from the prosecuting attorney about whether undercover-related exemptions apply.
Background and statutory framework
Arkansas FOIA at A.C.A. § 25-19-105 governs personnel-records disclosure. The principle that requester motive is irrelevant is well-established and consistently applied (Ops. 2023-073, 2023-054, 2014-094, 2011-095, 2006-118, etc.). The rule traces from the FOIA's structural design: public records are public, and motive-based screening would convert FOIA from a transparency rule into a discretionary disclosure regime.
The personnel-records exemption (§ 25-19-105(b)(12)) and personal-contact-information exemption (§ 25-19-105(b)(13)) still apply to specific exempt items regardless of who is asking.
The subject-request mechanism in § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) gives the subject of certain employee-related records the right to ask the AG to review the custodian's release decision. The AG's opinion is persuasive but not binding.
Citations
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (subject's right to AG review)
- Ark. Att'y Gen. Ops. 2014-094, 2011-095, 2006-118 (requester motive is irrelevant)
Source
Original opinion text
Note: The original opinion is dated June 22, 2024. Based on context (opinion number 2023-051) and surrounding chronology, the date appears to be a typographical error in the original; the opinion was issued in 2023.
Opinion No. 2023-051
June 22, 2024
Captain K.J. Hartman
Sherwood Police Department
2201 E. Kiehl Avenue
Sherwood, Arkansas 72120
Dear Captain Hartman:
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 A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i). That provision allows 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.
You say that your employer (1) has received an FOIA request from someone who seeks the dates of your promotions and a photograph of you and (2) plans to disclose those documents. You object to the release of the photograph because you know who the request is and suspect he has bad intentions in making the request, and you are concerned about what the requester will ultimately do with the records.
RESPONSE
This office has consistently opined that, under the FOIA, the requester's intent and motives are generally irrelevant to the custodian when determining whether public records must be disclosed. Therefore, your objection is not a sufficient basis for the custodian to withhold your records from disclosure.
Deputy Attorney General Ryan Owsley prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General