Can my former law-enforcement employer release my personnel file, internal-affairs investigation, and discipline records under FOIA over my objection?
Plain-English summary
Nicholas Carmichael, a former law-enforcement officer, objected to his former employer's plan to release his personnel and internal-affairs file under Arkansas FOIA. He noted he was not a party to any pending lawsuit, suggesting the requester's motives were not legitimate.
Attorney General Tim Griffin agreed with most of the custodian's plan and disagreed in two specific places. The breakdown:
Administrative records (personnel files including standards checklists, oaths, payroll change forms, training acknowledgments, etc.) are personnel records. They can be disclosed with standard redactions for SSN, DOB, contact info, marital status, dependents, banking, etc. The AG flagged two specific custodian errors:
1. The "general education" portion of the initial employment report was redacted; if it is just background education info (schools attended), it must be released.
2. The October 13, 2022 Payroll Change Notice left the last four digits of the SSN unredacted, while a January 1, 2022 form redacted them. The custodian should be consistent.
Disciplinary records:
- July 15, 2021 suspension letter: Releasable. The four-element test is met: suspended, finality, the letter formed the basis, and law-enforcement officers carry a heightened public trust.
- June 30, 2021 written reprimand: Withhold. The reprimand stands alone, not tied to a suspension or termination. Element 1 (suspension or termination) fails.
- October 11, 2022 written reprimand: Releasable. Although labeled a "Performance Notice," it functions as the basis for the October 13, 2022 termination/suspension. The four elements are met.
- October 13, 2022 termination letter: Releasable. Because the letter cites only general "Policy Violations" without specifics, it is more accurately classified as a personnel record. Even with a privacy interest, the public's interest in police accountability outweighs.
Investigative records (internal complaints, interview notes, timesheets, the map, the handwritten list): all employee-evaluation records. Releasable only if the termination is administratively final. The AG could not confirm finality from the materials provided. If final, release; if not, withhold. The custodian should also check whether numbers in the handwritten list are personnel numbers (which would have to be redacted).
The AG also rejected Carmichael's objection that the requester was not party to a pending lawsuit. The requester's intent and motives are generally irrelevant to FOIA disclosure.
What this means for you
If you are a law-enforcement officer or former officer
Your file is largely public. Administrative records (hire, transfers, training, salary) come out with standard redactions. Final discipline letters that name the policy violations come out, because Arkansas treats officer misconduct as carrying a "compelling public interest." Standalone written reprimands that did not lead to suspension or termination can stay confidential.
The most defensible position is procedural: confirm that the discipline is administratively final before release, and that any termination is not under appeal.
The fact that you object personally, or that the requester is not your lawsuit adversary, does not block release. The privacy test is objective and the requester's motives are irrelevant.
If you are a records custodian for a law-enforcement agency
A practical checklist for officer-personnel-file requests:
1. Sort each document into "personnel record" (not created to evaluate) or "employee-evaluation record" (created to evaluate).
2. For personnel records, run Young v. Rice two-step privacy balancing, apply standard redactions.
3. For evaluation records, withhold unless: (a) suspended or terminated, (b) action is final, (c) records were the basis, and (d) compelling public interest. For LEOs, prong (d) is presumed.
4. Confirm administrative finality of the discipline before release. If under appeal, hold.
5. Check redaction consistency: if you redacted SSN in one form, redact it in all. If you redacted education in one place but it is generic background, release.
6. Check numeric fields like "Position #" or "Employee #" for personnel-number content.
If you are a journalist or oversight advocate
This opinion is a clean precedent for accessing law-enforcement personnel and internal-affairs files. Two notes:
- Standalone written reprimands without follow-up suspension or termination remain confidential.
- The four-element test bars release of evaluation records until the discipline is administratively final, so requests during pending appeals will be denied.
If you are a defense or civil-rights attorney
The opinion preserves your ability to request a former officer's discipline file. The same compelling-public-interest finding the AG repeatedly makes for LEOs translates directly into the production framework for Brady and Giglio requests in criminal cases.
Common questions
Q: I am the subject of a FOIA request. Can I block release because I do not want my discipline made public?
A: No. The privacy test is objective, and a subject's preference is not a legal basis to withhold. Stilley v. McBride and consistent AG opinions hold the same.
Q: A written reprimand without a suspension is confidential, but a written reprimand that is part of a suspension-and-termination chain is releasable. Why the difference?
A: A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1)'s four-element test requires actual suspension or termination. A standalone reprimand that did not result in either fails the first element. When a reprimand is part of and forms the basis for a subsequent suspension or termination, the test is satisfied.
Q: What if the termination is being appealed?
A: Withhold until the appeal concludes. The AG framework requires "administrative finality," meaning the discipline cannot be reversed or modified through administrative process.
Q: The requester won't tell me why they want the records. Can I deny on that basis?
A: No. Under FOIA, requester motives are generally irrelevant to disclosure decisions.
Q: My agency redacted my education from one form but not another. What's right?
A: Generic education background (schools attended, degrees received) is releasable. The redaction should be removed unless the entry contains a non-educational item that warrants redaction.
Q: The October 11 reprimand was issued before the October 13 termination. Why is it releasable?
A: Because, in context, the reprimand was the basis for the termination two days later. It functioned like a suspension-grounds document. The four-element test is satisfied through that connection.
Background and statutory framework
Arkansas FOIA's framework for personnel files:
- Personnel records (A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12)): pertain to an individual employee, not created to evaluate. Released unless disclosure is a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Two-step Young v. Rice test.
- Employee-evaluation records (A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1)): created to evaluate the employee, detail performance. Withheld unless all four: suspension or termination, administrative finality, relevance, compelling public interest. Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66.
For law-enforcement officers, the AG has consistently treated the compelling-public-interest prong as essentially presumed because officers hold a heightened public trust.
Standard redactions in personnel records (per § 25-19-105(b)(13) and AG opinions): personal contact info, employee personnel numbers, marital status, dependents, DOB, SSN, driver's license, insurance, tax info, payroll deductions, banking information.
The opinion is part of a long line of AG analyses for police personnel files. Together with Opinions 2024-074 (Trooper Harris) and 2024-073 (Trooper Prichard), it forms a consistent framework: most administrative records release; final discipline releases; standalone reprimands stay confidential; standard redactions apply.
Citations and references
Statutes:
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105 (FOIA exemptions and personnel records framework)
Cases:
- Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (Ark. 1992) (two-step privacy test)
- Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66, 399 S.W.3d 387 (Ark. 2012) (definition of evaluation records)
- Pulaski County v. Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 370 Ark. 435, 260 S.W.3d 718 (Ark. 2007) (rebuttable presumption of public-record status)
Source
Original opinion text
Opinion No. 2024-067
June 27, 2024
Nicholas Carmichael
223 South Boston
Manila, Arkansas 72442
Dear Mr. Carmichael:
You have requested an opinion from this office regarding the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Your request is made under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) as the subject of a request for personnel and evaluation records.
Your correspondence indicates that someone has submitted a FOIA request for your personnel file held by your former employer, a law-enforcement agency.
You have provided for my review the following records, all of which your former employer, the custodian of these records, intends to disclose:
-
Administrative records. A "Standards Checklist"; three signed law-enforcement code-of-ethics forms with three different dates; an initial employment report, with redactions made to your social security number, email, date of birth, place of birth, driver's license number, and "general education"; two different oaths-of-office forms, one signed and notarized and the other uncompleted; a signed "Receipt of Issue" police and procedure manual form; a signed "Acknowledgement of Internet and E-Mail Policy" form; one HR "Payroll Change Notice & Request to Hire" form noting payroll change as "discharge" without providing the specific reasons; and five "Payroll Change Notices," with redactions made to your social security numbers, one for your hire date, one for a transfer from "Patrol to CID," and four for pay increases.
-
Disciplinary records. A June 30, 2021 written reprimand; two copies of the same "Immediate Relief of Duty Notice"; three copies of a "Performance Notice"; two copies of a July 15, 2021 "Notice of Disciplinary Action"; and three copies of an October 13, 2022 "Notice of Disciplinary Action."
-
Investigative records. A four-page "Internal Complaint EVT-00000258-1" and a three-page "Internal Complaint EVT-000002581-1 (Draft)," with two pages of typed notes; three pages of "TimeClock Plus" employee timesheet printouts; a copy of a "Craighead Forest Park, OHV Parking Lot, map"; and a handwritten list of names and numbers.
You object to your former employer's decision to release your personnel file because you are not a party to a pending lawsuit. [This objection itself is not a sufficient basis for the custodian to withhold the records from disclosure. This office has consistently opined that, under the FOIA, the requester's intent and motives are generally irrelevant when determining whether public records must be disclosed.]
RESPONSE
The administrative records are best classified as personnel records, so they must be disclosed, subject to proper redactions explained below. The disciplinary records and investigative records are best classified as employee-evaluation or job-performance records. The custodian's decision to disclose these records is partially consistent with the FOIA. The July 15, 2021 suspension letter and the October 13, 2022 termination letter must be disclosed; the June 30, 2021 written reprimand must be withheld; and the investigative records must be disclosed if the investigative records concern a termination that is administratively final.
DISCUSSION
For purposes of the FOIA, employees' personnel files normally contain two distinct groups of records: "personnel records" and "employee evaluation or job performance records."
1. Administrative records. The administrative records are best categorized as "personnel records" and the custodian's decision to disclose them is consistent with the FOIA. Personnel records pertain to an individual employee and are not employee-evaluation or job-performance records. The administrative records here do not provide details concerning the employee's performance or lack of performance.
Personnel records are open except "to the extent that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." The Arkansas Supreme Court in Young v. Rice applied a two-step balancing test (with a thumb on the scale in favor of disclosure): (1) is the privacy interest greater than minimal, and if so, (2) does the public's interest in disclosure outweigh it.
The AG has consistently classified the following as personnel records subject to disclosure: documents confirming employment, dates of hire, general education, training, certifications, job titles, employment contracts, names, salaries, and payroll records. The custodian's decision to release the administrative records as personnel records is consistent with the FOIA.
Standard redactions: personal contact information, personnel numbers, marital status, DOB, SSN, driver's license, insurance, tax info, payroll deductions, banking. The custodian must review the records to redact those items.
The "general education" portion of the initial employment report was redacted, but if it is general education background information (schools attended), it must be released without redaction. The October 13, 2022 "Payroll Change Notice & Request to Hire" form has the last four numbers of the SSN unredacted, though the same type of information was redacted in the January 1, 2022 form. The custodian should review these for consistency.
2. Disciplinary records. Most of the disciplinary records qualify as employee-evaluation records under Thomas v. Hall: created by or at the behest of the employer to evaluate the employee, detailing performance.
A. Suspension letter (July 15, 2021). A suspension letter qualifies as an evaluation record when it states grounds. The four-element test for release is satisfied: (1) suspended, (2) administratively final (suspension ended after one day, the appeal window has passed), (3) the letter is relevant because it details grounds, (4) law-enforcement officers carry a compelling public interest. Therefore the custodian's decision to disclose is consistent with the FOIA.
B. Written reprimands.
- The June 30, 2021 reprimand: withhold. No suspension or termination resulted. Element 1 fails.
- The October 11, 2022 reprimand (labeled "Performance Notice"): releasable. Read with the October 11, 2022 suspension/termination, it appears to serve as the justification. Four elements met.
C. Termination letter (October 13, 2022). Because the letter cites only general "Policy Violations" without specifics, it is best classified as a personnel record (not an evaluation record). Even assuming a privacy interest, the public's interest in officer accountability outweighs. Releasable.
3. Investigative records. Records in an internal-affairs file generated at the behest of the employer while investigating a complaint constitute employee-evaluation records. So do timesheets, the map, and the handwritten list, all generated in the course of investigating. Releasable only if all four elements are met. Three elements appear met: (1) terminated, (2) records formed a basis, (3) compelling public interest for LEOs. Element (4) administrative finality is unconfirmed. If final, release; if not, withhold. The custodian should check whether numbers in the handwritten list are personnel numbers (would require redaction).
Assistant Attorney General William R. Olson prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General